The Quran and Orientalists

THE QUR'AN AND THE ORIENTALISTS
THEQUR'AN
AND THE ORIENTALISTS
AN EXAMINATION OF THEIR MAIN THEORIES AND
ASSUMPTIONS
By
MUHAMMAD MOHAR}LI
(Formerly Professor of the History of Islam, Madina I s l ~ c University, Madina,
and Imam Muhammad Islamic University, Riyad)
IPSWICH
JAM'IYAT 'II:IYAA' MINHAAJ AL-SUNNAH
2004
THE QUR'AN AND THE ORIENTALISTS: AN EXAMINATION OF THEIR MAIN THEORIES AND
ASSUMPTIONS
PUBLISHED BY jAM'IYAT 'II;IYAA' MINHAAJ AL-SUNNAH
P. 0. Box 24, Ipswich, Suffolk IP3 8ED
Tel. & Fax: 01473251578
First edition 2004
ISBN 0954036972
M.M.Ali
\?J?
l ~ o , ~
PRJNTED BY ALDEN GROUP LIMITED, OSNEY MEAD, OXFORD, OX2 OEF
f\ LfSq
loo t.f
.J.ll !'""""'
J .JT J ...L..>...- J Js- r')LJIJ o')\....JIJ y J ....U ...l...>JI
PREFACE
The subject of the orientalists' views and assumptions about the Qur'an
especially attracted my attention during the early 1990s when I had been engaged
in writing the Strat al-Nabt and the Orientalists.
1
It soon became clear that the major
part of their assumptions and remarks about the Prophet are aimed directly or
indirectly against the Qur'an, which fact goes only to confirm the Qur'anic
statement at 6:33 (al-'An'am):
0 ....Ui .:.fJ J di 'Y
"So in fact they cry lies not to you [i. e., the Prophet]; but the transgressors do at
Allah's 'qyahs (revelations) hurl rejection."
Subsequently, early in 1999, my attention was drawn to an article written by
Toby Lester under caption "What is the Koran" and published in the January
1999 issue of the Atlantic Monthfy. It was a sort of heavyweight journalistic writing
publicising the views of Gerd-R Puin regarding the Qur'an based on his
examination of some Qur'anic manuscripts lately discovered at San'a', together
with the views of some other orientalists. I wrote a review of that article which
was published as a booklet under caption: The Qur'an and the Latest Orienta/is!
Assumptions.
2
In the following year I presented a paper (in Arabic) on the
orientalists' assumptions about the Qur'an at a seminar on Qur'anic studies and
sciences, organised by the King Fahd Qur'an Printing Complex and held at
Madina between 30 September and 3 October 2000.
3
A revised English version
of this paper was published in 2002 as another booklet under caption :The Qur'an
and the Orientalists: A Brief Suroey of Their Assumptions.
4
In the preface to this latter
booklet I mentioned that the subject needed a more detailed treatment. The
present work is an attempt in this direction.
As I started organizing the work I realized that some of the chapters in the
Strat al-Nabf and the Orientalists on the themes of the Prophet's alleged preparation
for giving out the Qur'an, his alleged borrowing from Judaism and Christianity
1
M. M. Ali, Sirat ai-Nabi and the Orientalist.r, with special referrnce to the writing.r of William Muir, D.S. Margolioutb and W.
Montgomery Watt, vols. 1A and 1B, King Fahd Qur'an Printing Complex, Madina, 1997.
2
Published by ]am'iat If!yaa' Minhaaj ai-Sunnah, Ipswich, June, 1999.
' Published by the King Fahd Qur'an Printing Complex, Madina, under caption : 0T_,.il1 J_,.- .:.' _r..:-)1 rl-"
4
Published by Jam'iat If!yaa' Minhaaj ai-Sunnah, Ipswich, June, 2002.
VI
for composing the Qur'an and the assumptions about the Qur'anic waf?y are very
much related to the subject of the present work and that without these
discussions the treatment of it would remain palpably incomplete. The first seven
chapters of the present work are thus revised versions of the relevant chapters in
the Sfrat ai-Nabf etc. The rest of the chapters dealing with the orientalists'
assumptions about the history and texts of the Qur'an are newly written,
incorporating some materials from my above mentioned booklets.
As thus designed, the present work gives in a compact and integrated form the
main orientalist assumptions and theories about the Qur'an and examines them
critically. The treatment is not what some of the orientalists are prone to call
"apologetic". I have met them on their own grounds and have taken up their
arguments and statements one by one, pointing out their faults, inconsistencies
and untenability. I do not claim, however, to be exhaustive and comprehensive. If
the present work helps to make the readers aware of the main orientalist
assumptions and theories about the Qur'an and their inherent faults and
unreasonableness, my efforts will not have gone wholly in vain.
I am grateful to my wife, Rosy, and my son Mansoor, whose care and
attention have sustianed me through a prolonged illeness and enabled me to
pursue and complete the present work. My thanks are due also to my
daughter-in-law, Muneera, and my second son, Maaruf, who have gone th,rough
the computer print-out script of the book and drawn my attention to a number of
typographical and other errors. I am responsible, however, for any other errors
that might still have escaped scrutiny. Last but not least, special thanks are due to
my eldest son, Manu (Abu and the Jam'iyat Il)yaa' Minhaaj al-Sunnah,
for having arranged for prompt publication of the work.
May Allah enable us to do what He likes and is pleasing to Him; and peace
and blessings of Allah be on His final Prophet and Messenger, Mul)ammad ibn
'AbdAllah.
And all the praise is for Allah, Lord of all beings.
12 Hazeleigh Gardens,
Woodford Bridge, Essex IG8 8DX
U.K.
M.M.Ali
11 April 2004
Preface
Abbreviations
Introduction
CONTENTS
PART I
ON 1HE ALLEGED AUTHORSHIP OF MUJ:IAMMAD (P.B.H)
CHAPTER
l. THE ALLEGATION OF AMBITION AND PREPARATION FOR GIVING OUT
1HEQUR'AN
i. On the theme of ambition in general
ii. The alleged cultivation of poetical skill
iii. The Question of literacy: Watt's theory
II. THE ALLEGED BORROWING FROMJUDAEO-CHRISTIAN SOURCES
i. Introductory remarks
ii. Summary of the assumptions
iii. On the environmental influence in general
iv. The alleged contact with J udaeo-Christian experts
v. The supposed Qur'anic evidence about a monotheist
informant or informants
vi. The so-called growth in accuracy in Biblical information
vii Differences in the Qur'anic and Biblical accounts
III. THE ALLEGED CONTEMPORARY ERRORS IN THE QuR'AN AS EVIDENCE
v
X
1-4
PAGES
7-25
7
14
15
26-61
26
26
33
38
40
46
53
OF THE PROPHET'S AUTHORSHIP 62
i. The supposed mistakes about Judaism and Christianity 62
ii. The alleged scientific errors 71
PART II
THE 0RIENTALISTS ON 1HE QuR'ANIC WAHY
IV. THE ORIENTALISTS ON THE QuR'ANIC WAI;IY: l. THE VIEWS OF MUIR
AND MARGOLIOUTH 91-109
i. Preliminary remarks 91
ii. Muir's assumptions 92
iii. Margoliouth's assumptions 99
iv. Margoliouth's assumption about the vision of God 106
Vlll
V. THE ORIENTALISTS ON THE QuR'ANIC WAij: II. THE VIEWS OF
RICHARD BELL
i. Summary of Bell's assumptions
ii. Concerning the traditions about the coming of waby
iii. The assumption of pre-Qur'an deliverances
iv. Bell's assumption about the vision of God
v. Bell's concept of waby
VI. ThE ORIENTALISTS ON THE QuR'ANIC WAI-fY: III. WATT's
TREATMENT OF AL-ZUHRIS REPORT ON THE COMING OF WAJ:IY
i. Preliminary remarks
ii. Watt's segmentation of al-Zuhri's report
iii. "Muhammad's visions"
iv. "The visit to Hid': Tabannuth"
v. "Thou art the Messenger of God"
vi. "Recite"
vii. "Surat ai-Muddaththir. the fatrah
viii. "Encouragement from Khadijah and Warqah"
110-133
110
111
114
117
125
134-171
134
135
138
148
152
156
159
167
VII. THE ORIENTALISTS AND THE QuR'ANIC WAifY: IV. WATT's THEORY
OF INTELLECTUAL LOCUTION 172
i. Watt's Matrix: A. Poulain's theory 172
ii. Watt's application of the theory considered 173
iii. Further Qur'anic evidence on the nature of Qur'anic waf:y 186
PART III
THE ORIENTALISTS ON THE HISTORY AND TEXT OF THE QuR' AN
VIII. ON THE HISTORY OF THE QuR' AN: I. THEODORE NbLDEKE
1
S
ASSUMPTIONS
i. The basic facts
ii. Noldeke's assumptions
iii. Examination of Noldeke's assumptions
IX. ON THE HISTORY OF THE QuR' AN: II. lNFLA TION OF NOLDEKE
1
S
ASSUMPTIONS
i. Arthur Jeffery's Materials etc.
ii. The Bell-Watt theories
ii. John Burton's Collection rf the Qur'an
197-217
197
202
203
218-244
218
232
241
lX
X. ON THE HISTORY OF THE QUR'AN: II. REVISIONISM AT ITS CLIMAX
i. On revisionism in general
ii.]. Wansborough's fallacies
iii. Yahuda D. Nevo et al: Digging the earth to bury the past
iv. The ~ a n ' a ' find: Fresh speculations
XI. ON THE TEXT OF THE QuR' AN: I. THE LANGUAGE AND STYLE AND
THE THEORY OF REVISION
i. On the language and style in general
ii. Noldeke's views on the language and style of the Qur'an
iii. The Bell-Watt extension to Noldeke's assumptions:
the theory of revision
XII. ON THE TEXT OF THE QuR' AN: II. THE SO-CALLED FOREIGN
VOCABULARY AND COPYIST'S ERRORS
i. On the naturalized foreign words in the Qur'an in general
ii. The orientalists' fiction of foreign vocabulary
iii. Arthur Jeffery's Foreign Vocabulary etc.
iv. Luxenberg's Syro-Aramaic Reading and Torrey's
Commercial-theological terms
v. The theory of copyist's errors and the proposed
emendations to the text of the Qur'an
XIII. THE ORIENTALISTS' TRANSLATIONS OF THE QuR'AN
i. The earliest orientalist translations
ii. The translation of Ludovicco Maracci and its off-shoots
iii. Glimpses of Sale's translation
iv. Translations of the late-nineteenth century: Rodwell
and Palmer
v. Translations of the twentieth century: Bell and Arberry
vi. Other main European translations
XIV. Conclusion
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
INDEX
245-271
245
248
256
267
272-304
272
273
279
305-323
305
306
311
313
316
324-352
324
327
330
335
343
351
353
363
367
ABBREVIATIONS
B.S. O.A.S. = Bulletin of the School of On"ental and Ajn"can Studies, London.
Bukharf ='Abu 'AbdAllah Mubammad ibn Isma'il al-Bukhari,
ai-Bukh!zrf (fhe number refers to the no. of badtth in Fath ai-Barl)
Ibn Hisham = 'Abu Mubammad 'Abd al-Malik ibn Hish:im, AI-Strat
].A.S.B.
J.A.O.S.
].RA.S.
M.atM.
M.W
Muslim
Musnad
Sryar
ai-Nabawryyah, ed. 'Umar 'Abd al-Salam Tadmuri, 4 vols., Beirut,
1990.
= 1 ournal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal
= 1 ournal of the Amen" can On"ental Society
= 1 ournal of the Rqyal Asiatic Society of Great Bn"tain and Ireland
= W. M. Watt, Muhammad at Mecca, Oxford University Press, 1960
= The Moslem World, Hartford Seminary Foundation, Connecticut,
U.S.A.
= 'Abu al-l;Iasan Muslim ibn al-I;:Iajjaj, al-Quashayri, al-Naysaburi,
$a/;fh Muslim (The number refers to the number of l;adtth in the
edition by Fu'ad 'Abd al-Baqi, 5 vols., Istanbul, n.d.).
= 'Abu 'Abd Allah Abmad ibn l;Ianbal ibn Mub.ammad, Musnad
Abmad ibn }janbal wa beihamishihi Muntakhab Kaf!j al- 'U mmdl, 6
vols., old print, n.d.
=Shams al-Din Mul:;ammad ibn 'Ahmad ibn 'Uthman
al-Dhahabi, Sryar 'A 'lam ed. Shu'ayb al-Arna'ut and
I:lusayn al-Asad, 25 vols., Beirut, 1992.
= Sulayman ibn Daud ibn al-Jarud 'Abi Daud, Musnad 'Abt Daud
al-T qydlisf, 2 vols., Beirut, n.d.
THE QUR'AN AND THE ORIENTALISTS:
AN EXAMINATION OF THEIR MAIN THEORIES AND
ASSUMPTIONS
INTRODUCTION
It has been a constant endeavour of the orientalists to assail the Qur'an. This
has been so since the rise of orientalism itself. Their main aim has been to prove
that the Qur'an is a product of human mind and hand. Basically this attitude on
the part of non-Muslims is as old as the Qur'an itself. The Makkan unbelievers,
the immediate audience of the Qur'anic revelations, made exactly the. same
allegation, saying that these were only a man's utterances,
1
that their trustworthy
but unlettered young man Mul).ammad (peace and blessings of Allah be on him)
had turned a poet or a sorcerer
2
or someone else had composed the passages of
the Qur'an which he memorized in the morning and the evening and gave out as
Allah's revelations or that these were mere ancient fables.
3
The Qur'an
categorically denies these allegations and gives appropriate replies to this
particular objection. In general the Qur'an's response to this allegation takes at
least seven principal forms. (a) Allah declares that the Qur'an is not the
composition of a human being nor did the Prophet turn a poet.
4
(b) The Qur'an
repeatedly says that it is Allah Who sent down the Qur'an and that also in the
Arabic language.
5
(c) Allah repeatedly asked the Prophet not to move his tongue
hastily in order to memorize what was being delivered to him and to listen
patiently and carefully till the completion of the communication, assuring him
that He would enable him to remember what was being delivered to him.
6
This
group of the Qur'anic passages clearly prove that what was being delivered to the
Prophet was in the form of particular texts. (d) Allah consoles the Prophet and
asks him to bear with patience the objection and rejection of the unbelievers by
reminding him that in the past there had not been a single Prophet who had not
been similarly disbelieved and objected to.
7
In fact the accounts of the previous
Prophets given in the Qur'an are geared to this end and to bring home to the
' Qur"an, 74:25.
2
Qur"an, 10:76, 21:5, 21:36,37:4, 47:7; 51:52-53,74:24. 52:30.
' Qur'an, 25:5.
Qur"an, 36:69; 69:40-41.
' Qur'an, 4:166; 6:96; 12:2; 14:1; 20:113; 22:16; 21:50; 24:1; 25:6; 38:29; 44:3; 97:1, among others.
6
Qur'an, 20:114; 75:16.
7
Qur'an, 3:183-84; 6:34; 13:23; 21:41; 36:30, among others.
2 THE QUR'AN AND THE ORIENTALISTS
unbelievers the truth of the message. (e) Allah asks the Prophet to declare that if
he fabricated anything himself and then gave it out in the name of Allah he
would be severely punished.
1
(f) Allah asks the Prophet to tell the people that He
is the Witness between him and them and that there could be no better a witness
of this matter than Allah.
2
This is very significant; for Allah's communication with
His Messengers is essentially an intimate affair which no outsider can witness or
vouchsafe for. (g) Allah asks the Prophet to throw out a challenge to listeners of
all times to come up with a text similar to that of even a single surah of the
Qur'an if they had any doubt about its being the words of God.
3
The challenge
remains open till today.
Ever since the time of the Prophet unbelievers and critics have merely
rehearsed the Makkan unbelievers' view about the Qur'an. And since the middle
of the nineteenth century modern European scholars, the orientalists, have
repeated the same objections and arguments. Foremost of these nineteenth and
early twentieth century orientalists are A Sprenger, William Muir, Theodor
Noldeke, Ignaz Goldziher, W. Wellhausen, Leone Caetani and David S.
Margoliouth. Their work and conclusions have been further developed and
summarised in the middle and later part of the twentieth century principally by
Richard Bell and his pupil W. Montgomery Watt. All these scholars have
attempted to show, by one device or another, that the Qur'an is Mul;lammad's
(peace and blessings of Allah be on him) own composition.
During the last quarter of the twentieth century, however, a new trend has
appeared among certain orientalists who have come forward with the suggestion
that not only is the Qur'an a work by human hand but that it came into being
through a process of evolution and growth over the first two centuries of Islam.
These group of orientalists are generally known as the "revisionists". Foremost
among the proponents of these views are ]. Wansborough, Patricia Crone,
Michael Cook and Yahuda De Nevo. Their views are summarised and publicised
by others like Andrew Rippin, Ibn Warraq, Toby Lester, and others.
Those who suggest that the Qur'an is the Prophet's composition have recourse
to the following lines of arguments:
1
Qur'an, 69:44-46.
2
Qur'an, 6:19; 4:76; 4:166; 13:43; 17:96; 29:52, among others.
' Qur'an, 2:23; 10:38; 11:13.
INTRODUCTION 3
(a) That the Prophet was an ambitious person who made preparations for
giving out the Qur'an and for the role he played.
1
Especially he cultivated poetical
skill since his early life to be able to compose the Qur'an.
2
(b) That he was not quite an unlettered person and the term 'umm!J applied to
him has a different connotation;
3
(c) That he borrowed ideas and information from Judaism and Christianity
which he incorporated in the Qur'an;
4
(d) That contemporary scientific errors are reflected in the Qur'an; so are many
commercial terms and foreign words, both showing his authorship of it.
5
(e) That the term wal;y by means of which he gave out the Qur'an does not
mean verbal communication of any text but "suggestions" and "intellectual
locution".
6
As regards the other group of the orientalists who try to prove that the Qur'an
is not simply the Prophet's composition but that it came into being through a
process of evolution and amendments during the course of a couple of centuries,
their arguments and assumptions revolve mainly round the following themes:
7
(a) The alleged unreliability of the sources and the history and collection of the
Qur'an.
(b) The assumptions round the recent discovery of certain Qur'anic
manuscripts at ~ a n ' a ' .
(c) Textual criticism and the alleged copyists' errors in the Qur'an.
It should have been clear from the above that the orientalists leave no stone
unturned to assail the Qur'an. The following few chapters examine the
assumptions and theories of both the groups of the orientalists regarding the
Qur'an. This has been done in three broad sections. In part I, the assumptions
1
See for instance W. Muir, Life of Mahomet, 3rd edition, reprinted 1923, pp. 25-26; D. S. Margoliouth, Mohammed and the
Rire of l.rlam, 3rd edition, London, 1905, pp. 64-65; Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at Mea"tl, Oxford, 1960, p. 39 and
Mubammad'.r Mett1, Edinburgh, 1988, pp. 50-51.
2
Muir, op. dt., p. 15; Margoliouth, op. dt., pp. 52-53, 60.
' Watt, Muhammad'.r Mecca, op. cit., pp. 52-53
4
See for instance Abraham Geiger, Wa.r bat Mohammed au.r dem judenthem aufgenommen? Bonn, 1833. See also his essay in
J udairm and I.rlam, Madras, 1898; Richard Bell, The Origin of l.rlam in it.r Clmstian Environment, London, 1926; C. C. Torrey,
The Jewi.rh Foundation ofl.rlam, New Work, 1933; A. I. Katsh,Judairm in I.rlam, New York, 1954.
5
Watt, Muhammad'.r Mect"tl, pp. 45-46; C. C. Torrey, The Commmiai-Theological Term.r of the Koran, Leiden, 1892; Arthur
Jeffery, The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur'dn, Baroda, 1938.
6
See for instance Richard Bell, "Mohammed's call", The Mo.rlem World, January, 1934, pp. 13-19; "Mohammed's visions",
ibid, April, 1934, pp.19-34; Watt, Muhammad at Mecca, op. cit., pp.52-58 and his The l.rlamk Revelation in the Modern World,
Edinburgh, 1969
7
References regarding these themes are given in the course of discussion in the respective chapters.
4
and theories of the orientalists about the Prophet's alleged authorship of the
Qur'an have been examined. Part II is devoted to an examination of their
assumptions and surmises about the Qur'anic waf;y. In the third part their views
and assumptions about the history and text of the Qur'an, including the views of
the "revisionists", have been dealt with.
PART I
ON THE ALLEGED AUTHORSHIP OF MUI;fAMMAD (p. b. h.)
CHAPTER I
THE ALLEGATION OF AMBITION AND PREPARATION
FOR GIVING OUT THE QUR'AN
One line of argument of the orientalists in support of their theory that the
Prophet Mul;lammad, peace and blessings of Allah be on him, had himself
composed the Qur'an is that he was an ambitious person who since an early age
had made preparations for the role he subsequently played. It is said that since his
early youth he had cultivated his linguistic and poetical skill which he
subsequently made use of in "composing" the Qur'an. Further, it has been argued
that the traditional view of his being an unlettered person is not quite correct and
that at least he knew reading and writing to some extent. The present chapter
examines these two lines of argument of the orientalists.
I. ON THE THEME OF AMBITION IN GENERAL
Among the early exponents of the above mentioned views are W. Muir and
D. S. Margoliouth who wrote respectively in the later part of the nineteenth
century and the early years of the twentieth century. Both of them speak very
distinctly about the Prophet's alleged ambition. Muir writes: "Behind the quiet
retiring exterior of Mahomet lay a high resolve, a singleness and unity of purpose,
a strength and fixedness of will, a sublime determination, destined to achieve the
marvellous work of bowing towards himself the heart of all Arabia as the heart of
one man."
1
This ambition, adds Muir, was reinforced after Mul;lammad's (p.b.h.)
arbitration in resetting the Black Stone at the time of rebuilding the Ka'ba, when
he was about thirty-five years of age. This incident, according to Muir, "prompted
the idea of his being chosen of God to be the Prophet of his people."
2
Speaking in the same strain Margoliouth asserts: "We know from the Koran
that Mohammed was a young man of promise" and that "of his ambition we have
evidence in the comfort which his notoriety afforded him at a time when few
things were going well with his project: Have we not expanded thy breast and
exalted thy name? is the form which the divine consolation takes, when the
Prophet is in trouble. Expansion of the breast, the organization of life about a
new centre ... and celebrity were then things for which he yearned. "
3
Margoliouth
1
W. MuiR, The Life of Mahomet, 3rd edition, 25-26.
2
Ibid., 29.
3
MARGOJLOUTH, op.cit., 64-65.
suggests that it was the Prophet's ambition and love for achieving personal
distinction which prompted him to participate in the Fij!ir war.
1
Of the subsequent orientalists who have taken over this theme of ambition on
the Prophet's part the most notable is Montgomery Watt. He does not specifically
use the term "ambition" in his statements. Instead, he speaks of the Prophet's
"consciousness" of his "great organizing ability" and adds a psychological
dimension to that consciousness, saying that the Prophet was actuated by a "sense
of deprivation" produced, first, by the absence of a father during his childhood
and, secondly, by "his exclusion from the most lucrative trade."
2
The hint for this
supposed sense of deprivation on the Prophet's part because of his being a
posthumous child seems to have been made by Margoliouth, for he states in
connection with the Prophet's childhood that the "condition of a fatherless lad
was not altogether desirable."
3
Be that as it may, Watt definitely follows
Margoliouth in citing the Qur'anic evidence of divine consolation to the Prophet
as a mark of his "preparation for his work as Messenger of God", with the only
difference that while the latter invokes the evidence of surah 94, Watt does that of
surah 93. Thus, describing the years that followed the Prophet's marriage with
Khadijah (r.a.) as "years of preparation" for the work that lay ahead, Watt gives a
translation of 'qyahs 6-8 of surah 93 and observes that this passage "seems to refer
to Mul:;ammad's early experiences" and that from this "we might perhaps argue
that one stage in his development was the realization that the hand of God had
been supporting him despite his misfortunes. "
4
Citing the same passage, with a
slightly different translation, in his latest work and similarly referring to the
Prophet's early life and what is called the "preparation for his work as Messenger
of God" Watt surmises: "The absence of a father must have produced a sense a
deprivation in Muhammad, and the real experience of poverty as a young man
may well have nourished the sense of deprivation."
5
"It was most probably his
exclusion from the most lucrative trade," concludes Watt, "coupled with his
consciousness of having great organizing ability, that made Muhammad brood
over the general state of affairs in Mecca."
6
I Ibid., p. 65.
2
WAIT, Muhammad'.r Mecca, 50-51.
3
MARGOLIOUTH, op.tit., 46.
4
WATT, M. atM., 39.
5
WArr,Muhammad'.r Mecca, 50-51.
6
Ibid., 50.
THE ALLEGATION OF AMBITION AND PREPARATION 9
Thus do the orientalists suggest ambition and preparation on the Prophet's
part. It must at once be pointed out that this assumption of personal ambition
and preparation on his part to play the role of a prophet-reformer is totally
groundless and is not at all sustained by the sources, neither by the text of the
Qur'an, nor by the traditions. The arguments, or rather the surmises adduced in
support of the allegation do not stand reason and common sense. Thus,
Margoliouth's innuendo that the Prophet participated in the Fijar war to gain
personal distinction is totally untenable and contrary to the facts, it being well
known that the Prophet was very young at the time of the Fijar wars and that on
only one occasion he was taken to the scene of the fighting by his uncle. He did
not go there on his own accord or initiative.
1
More flagrantly wrong is Margoliouth's use of the Qur'anic evidence in
support of his allegation. He says that "Mohammed was a young man of promise"
and cites in substantiation of this statement the authority of surah 11 (Hud), 'qyah
65.
2
The 'qyah runs as follows:
Y JA.. _r.i:- .Js J rt.:f J 1_,..::...; Jw t...
"But they hamstrung her (the she camel), so he (Prophet said: Enjoy yourselves in your
houses for three days. That is a promise not to be belied." (11:65)
This statement, indeed the whole section of the text here, refers to Prophet
Salih and his warning to his people for their continued disobedience and the
retribution that ultimately befell them. The "promise" (.JsJ) alluded to in the 'qyah
has reference to the warning of retribution which was not belied. By no stretch
of the imagination could it be construed to refer to the early promise and
determination of Prophet Mul;lammad (p.b.h.).
Margoliouth further quotes from surah 94, giving the translation of its 'qyahs 1
and 4 as a continuous sentence, omitting the two intermediate 'qyahs as: "Have we
not expanded thy breast and exalted thy name?"
3
Admitting that the passage is a
divine consolation to the Prophet at a moment of dejection, it is difficult to see
how it refers to his ambition and resolve during his early life to attain celebrity, as
Margoliouth concludes from it. Clearly his citation of 11 :65 in support of the
allegation of "early promise" on the Prophet's part is as misleading as. is his
interpretation of the 'qyahs 1-4 of surah 94 wrong and inappropriate.
1
Ibn Hishfun, I, p. 186.
2
MARGOLIOUTH, op.cit.,64.
' Ibid., 65.
The same remote and inappropriate construction has been put in this
connection by Watt on the Qur'anic passage 93:6-8 (surat There is no
doubt that the passage in question refers to the Prophet's situation in life prior to
his marriage with Khadijah (r.a.). It is also evident that it indicates a "realization"
on his part "that the hand of God had been supporting him despite his
misfortunes." But that realization was unmistakably posterior to his call to
prophethood and it cannot be taken to refer to his state of mind prior to that
event. Nor could it imply his mental preparation before the call. Nor does the
passage sustain the assumption of a sense of deprivation on the Prophet's part.
On the contrary, the predominant note in the passage is that of satisfaction and
gratitude for the favourable change in his situation brought about by the hand of
God. Whatever sense of deprivation he might have supposedly suffered from, it
had clearly yielded place to an unmistakable sense of satisfaction and gratitude
after his marriage with Khadijah (r.a.). And that changed situation and happiness
had been continuing for at least 15 years before the coming of the revelation to
him, that is, for the very material period which Watt characterizes as the period of
"preparation"
Equally wrong is Watt's assumption of the Prophet's "exclusion from the most
lucrative trade". Watt of course cites in this connection the well-known Qur'anic
statement at 43:31: "Why was not the Qur'an sent down to some important man
of the two towns
This passage indicates, as is admitted on all

hands, that the Prophet was not at the time of his call one of the leading men of
the two towns, Makka and 'P'if. But that does not necessarily mean his
"exclusion" as such from the "most lucrative trade". In fact, the theory of a trade
rivalry between Bam1 Hashim and some other Quraysh clans and the probable
exclusion of MuQ.ammad (p.b.h.) from the most profitable commercial
operations, on which Watt bases a number of his conclusions, is, as shown
elsewhere, groundless and totally untenable.
2
On the contrary, the expression fa
'aghna Cs:.<:.U), which is the key-word in 93:8, means, as Watt himself recognizes,
not only possession of substantial wealth but also, in Watt's own words, "a place
of relative independence and influence in the community." This is confirmed by
the well-known fact, also admitted by Watt, that the Prophet, on the eve of his
call, had entered into matrimonial relationships with the wealthy and influential
'Abu Lahab on the one hand, and with another very wealthy member of Bam1
1
WAIT, Muhammad'.r Mecta, 50.
2
See M. M. Ali, Sirat al-Nabf and the Orientalist.r, vol. lA, pp. 189-190.
Makhzum, on the other. Thus the suggestion that during the fifteen years from
his marriage with Khaclijah (r.a.) to his call to prophethood a sense of deprivation
due to poverty and exclusion from the most lucrative trade etc. "made
Muhammad brood over the general state of affairs in Mecca" and ultimately play
the role of a prophet-reformer is both antithetical to the tenor and purport of
surah 93 and contrary to the well-known facts of his life during that material
period of his pre-prophetic life.
Whatever might have been the state of MuJ::lammad's (p.b.h.) mind during the
years preceding his call, there is no doubt that he did not suffer from any sense of
deprivation. Nor did he make any plans and preparation for playing the part of a
prophet. This is clearly evidenced by the Qur'anic passage 28:86 which states:
.... -!1,J 0'" '-.....> J '1\ y\.:S0i ~ I .}1' .:>f l.f"' _; ..::...:S' l,. J
"You were not wont to expect that the Book would be sent down on you; but (it has been
given you) as a mercy from your Lord ... " (28:86)
This unequivocal statement of the Qur'an decisively negatives any ambition or
intention on Mul)ammad's (p.b.h.) part to become a prophet, though he had
occasionally engaged himself in solitary stay and contemplation prior to the
receipt of the revelation.
Nor did he ever exhibit by his deeds and demeanour any ambition or intention
to become a leader in his community, not to speak of becoming a prophet. It is
common knowledge that a leader does not emerge on the scene all of a sudden
but through a process of gradual development and preparation which seldom
remains concealed from the view and observation of his own people and
immediate society. The conduct and activities of the leader-to-be make his society
aware of his ambition. Yet, there is nothing on record to suggest that such was
the case with Mul)ammad (p.b.h.). If he had ever entertained any plan and made
any preparation for becoming a leader, that would have been known to his people
in some way or other and that would invariably have formed an important item of
criticism by his subsequent opponents. But nothing of the kind is discernible
from the sources. Till the receipt of the revelation he had not made any mark, by
his deeds or demeanour, as an aspirant to leadership in his society. Truly did his
adversaries point out, as the Qur'anic passage 43:31 noticed above shows, that he
was not that important a man in the two towns to be the Prophet. Nothing could
be a stronger testimony to the lack of preparation and ambition on his part than
this statement of the Qur'an.
That the coming of the revelation was a sudden and unexpected development
to Mul).ammad (p.b.h) is evident also from the famous tradition recording his
immediate reaction to the event. He hurried back home from the mount I::lid',
bewildered and trembling in terror and asked his wife to cover him. Then he
narrated to her what had happened to him in the cave, expressing his fear that
something untoward was perhaps going to happen to him, perhaps he was going
to die. She comforted and assured him, saying that Allah could not mean any
harm to him since he was so good and honest a man, always speaking the truth,
entertaining guests and helping his relatives and the needy, etc. After the initial
shock was over she took him to her knowledgeable cousin Waraqah ibn Nawfal
to ascertain the significance of her husband's experience in the cave of f:lira'.
Waraqah, after having heard about the incident, expressed his studied opinion
that MuJ;lammad (p.b.h.) had received a commission from Allah similar to what
had been previously received by Prophet Musa and that this would involve him
(M:ul).ammad, p.b.h.) in trouble with his own people. This last remark caused
further surprise in him.
1
Now, as Maududi points out/ several aspects of this report need to be noted
carefully. In the first place, the spectacle we get of the Prophet here is that of a
person who is clearly bewildered and confused at some unexpected and
extraordinary development. Had he ever entertained any ambition, made
preparations for playing the role of a prophet or religious leader and expected or
solicited any divine communication being made to him, his reaction would have
been quite different. He would not have been bewildered and terrified, but would
rather have returned from mount J:Iira' happy and confident in the success of his
endeavours and expectations, not needing consolation and assurance from any
one else, and would have at once proceeded to proclaim his commission and
mission.
Secondly, the reaction of Khadijah (r.a.) is equally significant. Had her
husband been ambitious and making any preparation for playing the role of a
social or religious leader, that fact, of all persons on earth, would have been
known at least to her. Hence, when the Prophet returned from mount Hira' with
his new experience, she would have simply congratulated him on the ultimate
success of his experiences and expectations and, instead of taking him to her
1
Bukhari, No. 3.
2
'ABuL 'A'LAMmoOoi, Sfrat-i-Sanvar-i-'Aiam, I, Lahore, 1978, Ch. II.
THE ALLEGATION OF AMBITION AND PREPARATION
13
cousin to obtain his opinion, would have taken other appropriate steps to embark
her husband on his new role.
Thirdly, the attitude ofWaraqah is similarly noteworthy. He was a close relative
of the Prophet and knew him and his background well since his boyhood.
Waraqah was also conversant with the Christian scripture and the fact of divine
revelation. With that knowledge he instantly came to the conclusion that the
stranger who had appeared to Mul)ammad (p.b.h.) in the cave of l;Iira' could not
have been anyone but the angel who used to bring Allah's message to Musi Had
the Prophet been ambitious and desirous of becoming a religious leader and had
he been in the habit of receiving instructions in the teachings of Christianity from
Waraqah, as is often alleged, the latter's reaction and attitude would have been
quite different. He would have either informed Mul;lammad (p.b.h.) that he had
obtained what he had so long been seeking or, likelier still, would have exposed
his preparations and pretensions to the public. That Waraqah did neither of these
is in itself an evidence that he neither imparted lessons in Christianity to
Mul].ammad (p.b.h.) nor was aware of any ambition and preparation on his part to
become a socio-religious reformer. On the contrary, Waraqah's reaction clearly
shows that by his study of the previous scriptures he had come to learn that the
advent of a prophet was foretold in them, that his advent was expected shortly
and that Mul;tammad (p.b.h.) answered the scriptural description of that awaited
prophet. It may further be pointed out that the orientalists, more particularly
Watt, state that Waraqah's assurance gave Mu};lammad (p.b.h.) confidence in his
mission.
1
This acknowledged lack of confidence on the Prophet's part at the very
inception of his mission further belies the assumption of ambition and
preparation on his part. To these may be added the well-known facts of his denial
of any desire for material gains out of his mission and, more particularly, his
turning down of the Quraysh leaders' repeated offers of wealth, leadership and
power to him in lieu of his abandoning his mission.
Before ending this section it may be noted, however, that the Prophet did of
course ultimately become the leader of his people and of the faithful in general.
And because of this fact the orientalists seem to read back ambition and
preparations on his part into his pre-prophetic life. But having strict regard to the
facts and to the sources, and also keeping in view the historical norm that no
leader emerges on the scene all of a sudden, the most that can be said is that the
1
WATT, Muhammad's MemJ, 59.
14 TilE QUR'AN AND TilE ORIENTALISTS
coming of the revelation to Mul).ammad (p.b.h.) and his call to prophethood was
the beginning of that process which ultimately invested him with leadership; it
was not the result of his ambition and preparation since his early life. At the time
of his call to prophethood he was neither a potential leader nor was known to
have aspired after leadership.
II. THE ALLEGED CULTIVATION OF POETICAL SKILL
The second prop for the orientalists' allegation of ambition on the Prophet's
part is their suggestion that since his early life he had taken care to develop his
linguistic skill which he utilized in "composing" the Qur'an. Thus W. Muir says
that the spectacle of literary and poetical competitions at the 'Ukaz fair excited in
Mul;J.ammad (p.b.h.) "a desire after personal distinction", as they also provided
him with "rare opportunities of cultivating his genius, and learning from the great
masters and most perfect models of the art of poetry and power of rhetoric. "
1
And echoing Muir, Margoliouth observes that Muhammad (p.b.h.) might have
had some practice in eloquence "in which he afterwards excelled".
2
Margoliouth
further states that though the Prophet had some aversion to poetry, the "language
of the Koran was thought by experts to bear a striking likeness" to early Arab
poetry. Obviously alluding to the poetical competitions at 'Ukaz, to which Muir
makes pointed reference in this connection, Margoliouth observes: "Of those lays
which were recited on solemn or festive occasions some verses then stuck in his
memory and provided the form of future revelations. "
3
It must at once be pointed out that the Qur'an is not considered a book of
poetry by any knowledgeable person. Nor did the Prophet ever indulge in
versifying. It was indeed an allegation of the unbelieving Quraysh at the initial
stage of their opposition to the revelation that Mu}:ammad (p.b.h.) had turned a
poet; but soon enough they found their allegation beside the mark and changed
their lines of criticism in view of the undeniable fact of the Prophet's being
unlettered and completely unaccustomed to the art of poetry-making, saying that
he had been tutored by others, that he had got the "old-world stories" written for
him by others and read out to him in the morning and the evening.
4
This
allegation also was squarely rebutted by the Qur'an
1
MuiR, Ufe of Mahomet, 3rd edition, 15 (1st edition, II, 7).
MARGOLIOUTII, op.cit., 52-53.
' Ibid.
4
lf!fra, p. 18.
As regards the allegation of poetry-making or the Qur'an being in any way a
work of poetry, it strongly denies the charge as follows:
.:r-:-' ) _?) '11 y- 01 .J \.. ) o\.:..Js. \..)
"And We have not taught him (the Prophet) poetry, nor is it meet for him. This
is naught but a reminding, a Qur'an, explicit." (36:69)
0_,:...-y \.. ')\.,.lj _,.,w. y- \..)
"And it is not the saying of a poet. Little is that you believe." (69:41).
In fact, quantitatively speaking, not even one fourth of the Qur'an is what
might be called sqj' or rhymed prose. Margoliouth himself in effect contradicts his
innuendo in two ways. He states at a subsequent stage in his book that
Mugammad (p.b.h.) lacked eloquence and was not a ready debater so that he did
not "try his chances" in what is called the "Council Chamber" of the Quraysh.
1
Secondly, while studiously shifting here the burden of opinion on the shoulder of
"experts" in the subject Margoliouth himself holds a diametrically opposite view
which he put forward subsequently in an independent study on the origins of
Arabic poetry in which he advanced the theory that the corpus of what is known
as pre-Islamic Arabic poetry was a post-Islamic development modelled on the scy'
of the Qur'an.
2
This theory has naturally elicited a good deal of discussion/ but
the very fact of his having advanced the theory constitutes a direct contradiction
by himself of his earlier assertion that the pre-Islamic Arabic poetry "provided the
form of future revelations." In fact neither did the Prophet ever in his
pre-Prophetic life practise the art of versifying nor is the Qur'an in any way a
book of poetry.
III. THE QUESTION OF LITERACY :WATT'S THEORY
Though alleging that the Prophet cultivated his linguistic and poetic skill, both
Muir and Margoliouth hold, in conformity with the sources, that he was an
unlettered person. Margoliouth puts it categorically, saying that Mugammad
(p.b.h.) "was not as a child taught to read and write, though these arts were
known to many Meccans" and "their use in commerce was so great."
4
1
MARGOLIOUlli, op.cit., 72.
' J.RA.S.,]uly 1925,417-449.
' Tii Hii I;Jusayn wrote his work Ff ai-Sha'r a!Jdhiliyyah on the basis of Margoliouth's theory. It elicited a good deal of
discussion. See for a concise account Muhammad Hudara's essay in Mandhij_ai-Mu.rtashriqfn, Pt.I, Arab Bureau of
Education for the Gulf States, pp. 396-438.
4
MARGOLIOUTH, op.cit., 59.
Interestingly enough, by pressing the two facts mentioned here by Margoliouth,
namely, the prevalence of literacy among the Makkans and its use in commerce,
Watt builds up a theory that the Prophet was not altogether unlettered but knew
some reading and writing. To prove this point Watt first cites a number of
Qur'anic statements and a few other facts showing that reading and writing were
in vogue at Makka and that these skills were used for both commercial and
religious purposes. He then states that in view of these facts "there is a
presumption that Mulpmmad knew at least enough to keep commercial
records.
1
" Watt also cites in this connection parts of the Qur'anic passages 29:48
and 25:5. They say, respectively, "You were not used to reading any book before
it (the Qur'an), nor to tracing it with your hand" and "Those were old-world
fables he had them written down for him".
2
Watt interprets these two passages to
say that the first passage means that "Muhammad himself had not read any
scriptures" previously, but that a man like Waraqah ibn Nawfal "or some of
Mul)ammad's alleged informants" had probably read the Bible in Syriac, no
Arabic translation being available at that time. As to the second passage Watt says
that it "can mean" that Muhammad had the old-world stories written down for
him "by secretaries". Thus arguing Watt concludes: "The probability is that
Muhammad was able to read and write sufficiently for business purposes, but it
seems certain that he had not read any scriptures."
3
Watt further discusses in this
connection the meaning of the term 'umm!J occurring in the Qur'an. Before
dealing with that point, however, it would be worthwhile to discuss the above
noted reasoning of Watt's.
It is well-known that some people at Makka at that time definitely knew
reading and writing. It is also a recognized principle that when a certain situation
or feature prevails generalfy in a given society or country, it gives rise to such a
presumption in respect of a particular individual of that society or country. But
neither the sources at our disposal nor the instances cited by Watt create the
impression that reading and writing was the order of the day at Makka on the eve
of the Prophet's emergence, nor that such was the case with any sizeable portion
of the then Makkan community, not to speak of a majority of them. Hence there
is no case for a presumption of reading and writing in respect of the Prophet. On
the contrary, the well-known circumstances of his early life give rise to a strong
1
WArr,Muhammad'.r Met"C<J, 52.
2
See below for text and further discussion.
' WATT, Muhammad's Mecca, 52
presumption that he had not any opportunity or chance for receiving a formal
education during the formative years of his life.
Secondly, with regard to the two Qur'anic passages, 29:48 and 25:5, Watt has
quoted them both only partly,, has taken them out of their contexts and has put
on them wrong and tendentious interpretations not supported by their contexts
nor by the tenor of any of the passages as a whole. To see how he has done so it
is necessary to quote the passages in original and in full. The text of 29:48 is as
follows:
w_,lk,...JI y \ . j J ~ 1.)1 ~ ~ ~ J ._,.,1.:;5' ,y ...y ,y l_,.l;i ..:. L. J
"And you were not used to reading /reciting any book before this, nor to writing it with your
right hand. In that case the prattlers could have entertained doubts." (29:48)
It is clear that the statement has been made in the context of the unbelievers'
allegation that the Prophet had himself composed what he was giving out as
revelation from Allah. The passage tersely exposes the absurdity of that allegation
by simply pointing out the indisputable fact known to every Makkan at that time
that the Prophet did not previously use to read and write anything so that it was
quite unlikely on his part to have come forward all of a sudden with a remarkable
literary work and give it out as Allah's revelation. The implication is all the more
clear from the last clause of the 'qyah which says: "in that case the prattlers could
have entertained doubts." It is also noteworthy that the expression ma kunta (L.
..:. ) implies a state of being unused or unable to (read and write). Also the
indefinite form in which the word kitab ( y\.:;5' ) has been used clearly means "any
book", not the book (yl::S:JI ), which is the form in which the Qur'an invariably
refers to the Bible.
In his translation of the passage Watt of course uses the expression "any book".
He also notes in connection with his discussion that there are "many reasons for
thinking" that the Prophet "had never read the Bible or any other book". But
having said so Watt proceeds to restrict the meaning of the passage to the
Prophet's not having read "any scriptures" and adds that though he "himself' did
not read the Bible nor wrote it down, persons like Waraqah ibn Nawfal and some
of the Prophet's "alleged informants" had read the Bible in Syriac. Needless to say
that such an interpretation is not sustained by the passage. Whether Waraqah or
any other person had read the Bible in Syriac or in any other language is totally
extraneous to the meaning and purport of the passage which speaks only about
the Prophet's antecedent. Watt's interpretation is cleverly geared to sustain
another assumption which will be discussed shortly, namely, that Mul).ammad
18 TilE QUR'AN AND THE ORIENTALISTS
(p.b.h.) obtained through others Biblical information and ideas which he
embodied in the Qur'an
More unreasonable, however, is Watt's interpretation of the passage 25:5. To
realize this it is necessary to quote the passage along with its immediately
preceding and following 'qyahs. The text runs as follows:
IJ)j J \.....ll;, JJl>.- ..ili 0 J?f i} ~ .,_;t_..f J olpl ..!,.l;l )II l..i.J. 01 IJ_,A) ..:;.J.ll Jt.; )
')\,...of) o_f..; ~ ,j...J ~ ~ I \.)J'JI _r.l.L...f I_,JL;)
....... ._;,J'JIJ ..::JIJL...-ll ~ _rll ~ .sJ.JI .Uyf Ji
"(4) And the unbelievers say: Tills (the revelation) is nothing but a lie which he (the Prophet)
has forged and in which another group of people have assisted him. Thus they have come up with
an unjust and false allegation. (5) And they say: (These are) tales of the ancients which he has
caused to be written (for him); then these are read unto him morning and evening. (6) Say: The
One Who knows the secret of the heavens and the earth has sent it down ... " (25:4-6).
It is obvious that the statement in 'qyah 5 is made in rebuttal of the unbelievers'
allegations mentioned in the previous 'qyah 4 and that the passage deals with two
types of allegations made by them. The first allegation was that the revelation was
a forgery made with the assistance of a group of people. This statement is
characterized as an "unjust and false allegation". The passage then refers to
another allegation of the unbelievers that the revelations given out to them were
"tales of the ancients" which also they further said the Prophet had caused to be
written for him by others and then read unto him in the morning and the evening
so that he could memorise and repeat them to the people. This is also denied by
emphasizing that the "One Who knows the secret of the heavens and the earth
has sent it down." The reference to the "One Who knows the secret of the
heavens and the earth" made in this connection is just to the point; for, revelation
is essentially an intimate affair between Allah and His messenger and none else
could be an eye-witness to this process. Indeed, in many places in the Qur'an it is
very rightly stated that Allah Alone is the best witness between the Prophet and
his detractors. Most important of all, in connection with both the allegations the
unbelievers specifically alleged that the Prophet got the assistance of others in
having the text written and read unto him. Clearly, the unbelievers said so
because they knew that the Prophet was unable himself to read and write. The
passage is thus the strongest proof that he did not know reading and writing.
In dealing with this statement in 25:5 Watt of course recognizes that it was an
allegation of the Prophet's pagan opponents that the revelations were "old-world
11-IE ALLEGATION OF AMBITION AND PREPARATION 19
stories" he had got written down for him; but Watt does not follow the meaning
and implication of the statement as a whole. He side-tracks the fact of the denial
of the allegation, which is the sole essence and spirit of the passage. Instead, he
treats the allegation as an isolated statement and suggests that it "can mean" that
the Prophet did not "himself'' write down the text but that he had it written by
"secretaries". Thus in effect Watt adopts the unbelievers' allegation and suggests
that though the Prophet had the text of what he gave out as revelation written by
others, he, in reply to his opponents' allegation to the same effect, stated that he
himse!fhad not written it! Nothing could be a more stark disregard of the context
and sequence of the text and a more absurd misinterpretation of it.
If Watt had been a little careful before advancing his interpretation he would
have asked himself the vital question, which is the key to the whole situation,
namely, why should the Prophet's opponents have made that type of allegation
saying that he had obtained the help of others in composing the text of the
revelation and had the old-world stories etc. written down for him by others? A
moment's reflection would have led to the unavoidable answer that they said so
because they and every one of their contemporaries knew full well that
Mul).ammad (p.b.h.) was himself incapable of producing such a literary piece as he
was giving out to them as revelation. In fact they did not stop by saying only that
the Prophet had the old-world stories written for him. They took care to mention
also that he had those stories read or recited unto him in the morning and in the
evening. The obvious implication is that they knew also that he could not do his
work by simply having the stories etc. written for him; he needed them to be
recited or read unto him for the purpose of mastering and memorizing them so
that he could reproduce them before men. The omission of this very essential
part of the '4Jah regarding the unbelievers' allegation constitutes the second grave
defect in Watt's treatment of it. He avoids mentioning it obviously because it
would dismantle his contention. Thus, by completely disregarding the context and
tenor of the '4Jah, by using only a fragment of it and by omitting the second part,
which is vitally damaging to his interpretation, Watt attempts to make one of the
strongest Qud.nic statements showing the Prophet's "illiteracy" yield a contrary
impression. Watt also does not seem to be aware of the implications of the
assumption of mentors or secretaries for the Prophet. If the Prophet had
employed others to compose the text of the revelation for him, or, indeed, if he
had taken lessons from any one of his contemporaries, he would invariably have
20 TIIE QUR'AN AND TIIE ORIENTALISTS
been exposed by those supposed mentors or secretaries, the more so because his
claims to prophethood involved his leadership over the whole community
including the alleged mentors or secretaries as well.
Having thus grossly misinterpreted the above mentioned Qur'anic passages
Watt concludes: "The probability is that Muhammad was able to read and write
sufficiendy for business purposes, but it seems certain that he had not read any
scripture." Watt further says that this conclusion "gives Muslim scholars all that is
essential for apologetic purposes. "
1
He then takes up the term 'ummfy occurring in
the Qur'an and says that though the Muslim scholars take it as implying
"complete inability to read and write" it actually means "a people without a
written scripture". He refers in this connection to the Qur'anic passages 2:78,
3:20, 3:75, and 62:2, all of which he says convey the same meaning. Therefore, he
concludes, the 'ummfy Prophet means non-Jewish, gentile or unscriptured Prophet
and that this means "that Muhammad had no direct knowledge of the Bible."
2
Now, Watt's declaration that his conclusion gives Muslim scholars all that is
essential for apologetic purposes is supercilious. In saying that Muslim scholars
interpret the term 'ummfy only in the sense of "complete inability to read and
write" Watt only betrays the perfunctory nature of his study of the sources. Both
classical and modern Muslim scholars clearly state that the term also conveys the
sense of being "unscriptured" or "non-Jewish". Thus Ibn Isqaq, the foremost
authority on the sfrah, very clearly mentions in explaining the meaning of
'ummryyfn : "those who have not received any scripture y\;;5" 'i .:.r..U1).
3
Again,
Al-Farra' (d. 270 H.) whose Ma'anf ai-Qur'an, is an indispensable reference work
on the vocabulary of the Qur'an, gives one of the meanings of 'ummfy as "the
Arabs who had no revealed scripture" (y\;;5" .:.r..UI r-" ).
4
The same
meaning is quoted by Raghib (d. 502).
5
Even a modern scholar like
Mauducli notes the same as one of the meanings of 'ummfy.
6
While accusing the Muslim scholars of having interpreted the term in only one
sense, Watt himself in fact attempts to show that at all the places in the Qur'an
where the term occurs it yields only one and the same meaning of being
1
WAIT, Muhammad'.r Mecca, 52.
2
Ibid.,53.
' Ibn Hirhdm, II, p. 220.
4
AL-FARRA' (ABO ZAKARIYA YAJ;lYA IBN ZIAD, (d. 270 H.), Ma'dni a/Qur'dn, Vol.II, Beirut, n.d., 224 ; also quoted by
RAGHiB AL-l?FAHANi, AI-Mufraddt Ff Gharib a/Qur'dn, 23 .
. I Ibid
6
MAuouoi, Tafhim Eng. tr. Towardr Under:rtanding the Qur'dn,(tr. Z.l.ANSARI), Vol. I., Leicester, 1988, pp. 87, 242,
265.
11-IE ALLEGATION OF AMBITION AND PREPARATION 21
non-Jewish or unscriptured. Thus even with regard to 2:78 where such an
interpretation is clearly inadmissible, because the whole description is about the
Jews, he imposes that interpretation upon the expression and says that "careful
reading of the verse shows that the reference is to the people without a written
scripture. "
1
That it is not at all so will be clear if we look at the '#yah and its
context a litde carefully. It runs as follows:
0 _,:.12: 'J\ ~ 0\J _;L.( 'll ... ,JI.:S:ll 0 ~ 'l 0 _,...( r+-" J
"And among them are 'umm!Jyun who do not know the book except 'amanryya; and they do
naught but conjecture." (2:78)
Watt gives a translation of the '#yah up to the expression 'illd 'amanfyya as:
"among them are 'ummfyyun who do not know the book except from hearsay" and
adds that the rendering of 'ilia 'amanfyya as "except from hearsay", which is
Pickthall's, "is much disputed but hardly affects the argument." Also, citing
Pickthall Watt says that kitab should be translated as scripture.
2
Watt is right in saying that Pickthall's rendering of the expression 'ilia 'amanfyya
"is much disputed". In fact it is simply wrong; for no standard lexicon or
dictionary puts that meaning on it. Its generally accepted meaning is "desires",
"whims" or words to the same effect. In fact if Watt had taken the trouble to
refer to A. Yusuf Ali's translation, the first edition of which appeared in 1934,
only four years after that of Pickthall's, he would have found that the expression
has been translated there as "desires". Even A.J. Arberry gives its meaning as
"fancies"
3
Watt seems to have chosen to use Pickthall's translation because he
thinks it supports his interpretation of 'ummfyyun here as people without a
scripture.
But apart from the disputed meaning of 'amanfyya, the '#yah does in no way
support the interpretation of 'ummfyyun given here by Watt. The whole context of
the '#yah is a description of the conduct of the Jews of the time. Thus '#yah 76 of
the surah speaks of their concealing important aspects of the revelation they
themselves had received; while '#yah 77 states , by way of a warning to them: "Do
they not know that Allah knows what they conceal and what they reveal?" Then
comes '#yah 78, which is quoted above, starting with the expression: "And among
them ... ", thus continuing the description; and the succeeding '#yah 79 refers to
their practice of giving out their own compositions as revelations from Allah,
1
WAIT, Muhammad's Mecca, 53.
2
Ibid.
' A.J. ARBERRY, The Koran Interpreted, O.V.P. (Paperback), 10.
thus elucidating one of the ways in which they used to indulge in their 'am!mtyya
(fancies) in respect of Allah's revelation. In fact the description and censure
continue till 'qyah 82. Obviously the 'qyah refers to the 'ummtyyun of the Jews, i.e.,
the uninformed and ignorant ones of them, not to any other group of people. If
the reference here was to the Arabs or unscriptured people in general, the
expression wa minhum (And from among them) would be totally irrelevant and
uncalled for; because the Arabs or other non-Jewish people there were all
unscriptured.
Even keeping aside the context and taking the 'qyah in isolation, it is impossible
to reconcile Watt's interpretation with it. Thus employing the English equivalents
suggested by Watt himself the translation of the 'qyah would stand as: "And
among them are unscriptured people who do not know the scripture (al-kitdb)
except 'amdntyya ... " It is simply pointless to allege that an "unscriptured people"
did not know the scripture! Such a statement, besides being nonsense, does not
have the force of censure which is the unmistakable tenor of the 'qyah in question.
The oddity of the interpretation would be all the clearer if we take into
consideration the last part of the 'qyah which, characteristically enough, Watt does
not mention. This last clause consists of five words - wa in-hum 'illd yazunnuna -
"and they do naught but conjecture." This clause is just in continuation of the
censure and in the nature of an elaboration of the term 'amdntyya used previously
in the 'qyah. Hence this concluding clause of the 'qyah also will have no force of
censure and no sense if the expression 'ummtyyun here is taken to imply a people
who have not received any scripture; for it is no fault in such a people that they
should only conjecture about the contents of the book. Thus, whether considered
in its context or in isolation the 'qyah clearly means that "among them", that is
among the Jews about whom the whole discussion is going on here, there are
'ummtyyun, that is the illiterates and ignorant ones of them who do not take care to
study their own scripture, who only follow the dictates of their fancies and
indulge in conjectures. Not only that, they also give out their own compositions
as the book from Allah, as the succeeding 'qyah 79 says. This latter statement also
would be meaningless if the 'ummtyyun about whom it speaks is taken to mean a
people without a scripture; for there was no question for such a people giving out
something as the scripture to the people.
Thus Watt's conclusion is totally wrong and based on a faulty understanding of
the 'qyah in question, and on a still more wrong assumption that the word 'ummfy
TI-IE ALLEGATION OF AMBITION AND PREPARATION 23
is used in the Qur'an always and invariably in the sense of an unscriptured
people.
Watt thinks that the ~ o r d 'umm[y is derived from the Hebrew phrase ummot ha
'olam (the peoples of the world of gentiles). Such might have been the case; but
there is the more authoritative view that it is derived from the Arabic word 'umm
(mother) and therefore 'umm[y means a person who has no acquired knowledge
except what he received at his mother's cradle. In any case, it is fairly certain that
the Jews used to refer to non-Jews as 'umm[y or unscriptured people. They did so
derisively to imply that since the other people did not possess any revealed book
they were devoid of knowledge and learning or, in other words, they were
ignorant and illiterate. Thus even from the Jews' practice the word bore the
meaning of illiterate or ignorant. It may be recalled in this connection that the
ancient Greeks also used to refer to all non-Greek (non-Hellenic) people as
"barbarians". This word also conveyed not simply the meaning of non-Greek but
essentially that of a person beyond the pale of civilization and culture. And it is
this latter meaning that ultimately prevailed to the exclusion of the original
meaning. Similarly the Arabs used to refer to a non-Arab as 'aJam, that is one
who is unable to express himself fluently, the original meaning of 'Arab being one
who could express himself fluently. Subsequently the original meaning of 'aJam
receded into the background and it came to imply simply a non-Arab or
foreigner. Again, the ancient Hindus used to call a non-Aryan a yavana; but
subsequently the word came to denote not simply a non-Aryan, but a
non-Hindu, more particularly a Muslim. It is thus clear that such words had both
original as well as acquired meanings and that for a period of transition those
words bore both meanings. It appears that in so far as the word 'umm[y is
concerned, both its original and acquired senses were in vogue when the Qur'an
was revealed. Hence we find it used in both the senses in the Qur'an, the exact
sense at each place to be determined by the context and tenor of the statement.
Also, it is well known that in every language there are many words each of which
bears a number of meanings depending on the context and the situation.
As shown above, the term 'umm[y has definitely been used in the sense of
"unlettered" in 2:78. There are five other places where the term occurs in the
Qur'an. In three of these places, namely, 3:20, 3:75 and 62:2, the term occurs in
the plural and accusative form and in each of these places it may be taken either
in the sense of illiterate and uninformed people or in that of people without a
scripture.
At the other two places, namely, 7:157 and 7:158, it is used in its singular form
and as a personal epithet of the Prophet. At each of these places it signifies an
unlettered person and it can in no way be taken to mean a person without a
scripture or a non-Jewish individual. This would be evident if we simply looked at
the relevant parts of these two 'qyahs. They run as follows:
)Jf') ..:r.lli..i .... j.:,.;'Ji) oiJ_,:;)I J 4_,::>:.....; <./';1 j_,..... )I ..:r.lli
0 _,.,.J..WI !'""' ..:lll} ...,._. J jl <.>.ill J _,:11 I _,.;I J o J J
"Those who follow the Messenger, the 'ummfy (unlettered) Prophet, whom they find mentioned
to them in the Tawrah and the I'!}i/, ... So those who believe in him, respect him and help him, and
follow the lzghtwhich is sent down with him, they are the ones who will succeed." (7:157)
o_,.;IJ -.;W5" J .u.J4 .yj!. <.>.ill </fy\ J .u.J4 1_,;..-t .... 1...,.- j_,.....J Ji <.f'l:JI Ji

"Say 0 mankind, I am Allah's Messenger to you all ... So believe in Allah and His Messenger,
the 'ummfy (unlettered) Prophet who believes in Allah and His Words. And follow him so that you
may get guidance." (7:158)
Two points need to be specially noted about these two 'qyahs. In the first place,
while the burden of the first 'qyah is that the Prophet was sent as Messenger of
Allah to Jews as well as Christians "who find him mentioned to them in the
Tawrah and the byi!', the second 'qyah states that he was sent to all the people of
the world. This being the main burden of the two 'qyahs it would be quite
inappropriate to emphasize here his non-Jewish origin or Arab ethnic affiliation.
In fact it would be simply self-defeating to say that a non-Jewish or unscriptured
Prophet was sent to the Jews and Christians who had their scriptures. Rather,
keeping in view the fact that it was the unbelievers' frequent allegation that what
Mul:;lammad (p.b.h.) was giving out was his own fabrication, and also the fact that
the appeal was addressed to a wider audience, it is only natural that the case was
put in the way best calculated to rebut the allegation and convince the audience.
Second, both the 'qyahs also say, implicitly as well as explicitly, that the Prophet
had been endowed with a revealed book which he himself believed (who believes
in Allah and His Words -.;W5" J .u.J4 if y. <.>.ill ) and asked his audience to believe in it
( and follow the light which is sent down with him ...,._. Jjl <.>.ill J_,:JI 1_,.;1J ). Thus at
both the places the expression can only mean an unlettered or untutored Prophet,
not at all a non-Jewish or unscriptured Prophet. For one thing, it would simply be
antithetical to describe him as an "unscriptured" Prophet when he had already
received a scripture (kitdb) and which he had been asking all the people -
Makkans, Arabs, Jews, Christians and "all the people" of the world- to believe.
The whole point at issue was whether the scripture he claimed to have received
from Allah was to be believed or not. In that situation it simply could not have
been said that he was an "unscriptured" Prophet.
Whatever meaning one may like to put on this term, it should once again be
stressed that this word is not the sole Qur'anic evidence of the Prophet's being an
unlettered person. As already noted,
1
there are a number of Qur'anic statements,
made mainly in reply to the various allegations of the unbelievers, that
unmistakably show that the Prophet was unacquainted with the art of reading and
writing and that this fact was so well known to his adversaries that they were
forced to modify their lines of attack saying that he had got his texts written
down and read unto him by others.
Before leaving the topic it would be worthwhile to mention that Watt opens his
discussion by observing that the "main body of later Muslim opinion argued that
the Qur'an was all the greater miracle because Muhammad could neither read nor
write ... "
2
It must at once be pointed out that Muslims hold that the Prophet was
unlettered not because the "main body of later Muslim opinion" argued that for
the sake of proving the miracle of the Qur'an, but because the Qur'an itself
clearly proves him to be so and throws out a continuing challenge to any one to
come up with a single surah comparable to any of its long or short surahs. Watt's
premise and the way in which he misconstrues the Qur'anic statements in this
regard only indicate that he is out to prove the reverse, namely, that the Prophet
did know reading and writing and, by implication, the Qur'an is not much of a
miracle. But after all his laboured misinterpretations and faulty arguments he
concludes that probably "Muhammad was able to read and write sufficiently for
business purposes." Obviously the question his conclusion suggests is: Was it
likely or natural for anyone with such modest knowledge of the three Rs and
without any prior literary effort of any sort till at least the fortieth year of his life
to produce all of a sudden a text which constitutes acknowledgedly "the supreme
classic" of Arabic literature? Unfortunately Watt has not asked himself the
question, let alone answering it.
1
Supra, pp. 17-20.
2
CHAPTER II
THE ALLEGED BORROWING
FROM JUDAEO-CHRlSTIAN SOURCES
I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
A good deal has been written on the theme of the Prophet's having allegedly
drawn on Judaism and Christianity in formulating his doctrines and teachings.
The aim of these writings has invariably been to show, on the one hand, his
preparations for the role he played and, on the other, to disprove the divine origin
of the Qur'an. The first modern scholar to advance this line of the assumption
seems to be Abraham Geiger
1
who concentrated on the supposed Jewish
influence on the Prophet. He was shortly afterwards followed by William Muir
who was perhaps the first modern scholar to advance the theory as a whole and
did most to popularize it. Since his writings a number of works have appeared on
the subject.
2
In 1926 was published Richard Bell's The Origin if Islam in its Christian
Environment. Shortly afterwards the Jewish case was stated in C. C. Torrey's The
Jewish Foundation if Islam
3
and restated in A. I Katsh's Judaism in Islam.
4
The sheer
volume of these writings calls for an independent treatment of it. The scope of
the present work, however, allows only an epitomization and discussion of the
main assumptions which are in fact reflected in the works of Muir, Margoliouth
and Watt.
II. SUMMARY OF THE ASSUMPTIONS
Muir says that Muhammad (p.b.h.) obtained his knowledge of Judaism and
Christianity through his contact with the followers of those religions in Makka,
Madina and the 'Ukaz fair, as well as in the course of his trade journeys to Syria.
Even as a child he is said to have seen the Jews at Madina, "heard of their
synagogue and worship, and learned to respect them as men that feared God."
5
Muir of course rejects as "puerile" the story of a meeting between Nestorius and
the Prophet during his second journey to Syria leading Khaclijah's (r.a.) trade
1
ABRAHAM GEIGER, Was hat Mohammed au.r dem Judenthem aujgenommen?, Bonn, 1833.
2
Of such works mention may be made of (a) WILHELM RUDOLPH, Abhangigkeit des Qoran.r von Judentum und Die Chri.rtentunm,
Stuttgart, 1922; (b) ToR ANDRAE, Der Ursprnng de.r Islam.r und de.r Chri.rtentum, Stockholm, 1926 (Fr. tr. Le.r Origins de I'Lrlam le
Chri.rtianisme, Paris, 1955); (c) K. AHRENS, "Christliches in Qoran", ZDMG, 1930, 15-68, 148-190 (also his Muhammed aLr
fuligions.rtifler, Leipzig, 1935).
' New York, 1933, republished 1967.
4
NewYork,1954.
5
MuiR, op.dt, third edition, 15 (1st edition, II, 8). -----------
THE ALLEGED BORROWING FROM JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY 27
caravan to that place. Yet, says Muir, "we may be certain that Mahomet lost no
opportunity of enquiring into the practices and tenets of the Syrian Christians or
of conversing with the monks and clergy who fell in his way.
111
As specific
instances of such contacts, however, Muir mentions only three, namely, (a) the
Prophet's having heard as a boy the preaching of Quss ibn Sa'ida at the 'Uka?
fair,
2
(b) the contact with Zayd ibn f:Iarithah whose ancestors, Muir supposes, had
been exposed to the influence of Christianity and who, though sold as a slave
when a little boy, must have communicated whatever impressions he had of
Christianity to Mul).ammad (p.b.h.);
3
and (c) the contact with Waraqah ibn Nawfal
who, as Muir puts it, "had an acknowledged share in satisfying the mind of
Mahomet that his mission was divine. "
4
Muir further says that Muq.ammad
(p.b.h.) must have noticed the differences and conflicts among the Christians and
the Jews but nonetheless he obtained from them the idea of One True God, of
divine revelation, of a Book and of a name, that of Abraham (Ibrahim), which
both Jews and Christians repeated with profound veneration and who was "the
builder of the Ka'ba and author of the rites observed there by every Arab tribe.".
Muir also says that while in Syria the Prophet must have observed what is called
"the national profession of Christianity" there. As a result of all these, concludes
Muir, Mul:lammad (p.b.h.) thought of acting the part of a Christian bishop, "but
on a still wider and more catholic scale."
5
Having said this, and being obviously aware of the differences between the
teachings of the Qur'an and the articles of the Christian faith, Muir attempts to
explain the position by saying that the Prophet derived his information from the
"orthodox party", the "ecclesiastics and monks of Syria", and thus he obtained a
"distorted" and faulty view of Christianity, particularly with regard to Mary and
Jesus.
6
Had he been given a correct view, observes Muir, he would have become a
Christian instead of founding a new religion. Muir therefore laments that "the
misnamed catholicism of the Empire thus grievously misled the master mind of
the age, and through him eventually so great a part of the eastern world. "
7
The views thus advanced by Muir were taken over and repeated by subsequent
writers. Thus Margoliouth, for instance, builds upon Muir's suggestions and says
1
Ibid., 20 (1st edition, II, 18).
2
Ibid., 15-16 (1st edition, II, 7-8).
' Ibid, 34 ( 1st edition, II, 49-50).
' Ibid .. (1st edition, II, 52).
5
Ibid.,16 (1st edition, II, 8-9).
6
Ibid., 20-21 (1st edition, II, 19-20).
7
Ibid.
that in the course of his trading activities Mul).ammad (p. b. h.), picked up
information, most of it from "conversations (e.g.) at wine-shop or from listening
to story-tellers" among whom were "Jewish dealers who traded in clothes."
1
From
such intercourse with the Arabian Jews and Christians the Prophet is said to have
"derived a sort of biblical phraseology".
2
Also, he is said to have been so
engrossed in business that "traces of this calling are found all over his Sacred
Book."
3
Like Muir, Margoliouth also says that Mul).ammad (p.b.h.) got the idea of
a Prophet, of divine revelation, of a Book, etc. from the Jews and Christians and
that the Prophet's knowledge about these two systems was faulty and
"superficial".
4
Margoliouth adds, however, that as time went on the Prophet's
knowledge about the biblical stories improved. There "is no question", writes
Margoliouth, "that as the Koran grew in bulk, its knowledge of biblical stories
became somewhat more accurate: and though this greater degree of accuracy may
have at times been due to the Prophet's memory, it is more likely that he took
such opportunities as offered of acquiring more information. "
5
But while Muir laments that a distorted view of Christianity prevented
Mul).ammad's (p.b.h.) ultimate conversion to that system, Margoliouth seeks to
explain that outcome in terms of the Prophet's design and personal ambition. The
part which the Prophet played, says Margoliouth, was "present to his mind for
many years, suggested by conversations with Jews and Christian and Parsees", all
of whom had "one thing which the Arabs had not: a legislator, who had acted as
divine commissioner ... Yet each nation ought to have a leader. Here then was an
opportunity for a Prophet. "
6
Echoing Muir's view that the Prophet observed and was impressed by the
"national profession of Christianity" in Syria, Margoliouth says that when he (the
Prophet) visited countries where "the whole population was subjected to the law
of God" he was convinced of the backwardness of his own country and of the
need for reform which he decided to carry out by assuming the role of a prophet
and by means of a revelation which he saw as "an indispensable preliminary of
progress."
7
He did not think of either Judaism or Christianity because, according
1
MARGOLIOUTH, op.cit., 60.
2
Ibid., 58-59.
' Ibid.,69. Here Margoliouth refers to C.C.Torrey's Commenial-Tbeologica/ Term.r in the Koran, Leiden, 1892, without
specifYing the author and title of the work.
4
MARGOLIOUTH, op.cit., 76-77.
' Ibid., 106.
6
Ibid., 73.
7
Ibid., 74.
THE ALLEGED BORROWING FROM JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANI1Y 29
to Margoliouth , Christianity "could not be dissociated from subjection to the
suzerainty of Byzantium and Mohammed was far too great a patriot to
contemplate the introduction of a foreign yoke." Also, even if converted to "an
established religion, he could not have pretended to such knowledge of it as older
members possessed. "
1
Hence he decided to reproduce the role of Moses or Jesus.
"Being a cool-headed student of human nature", further states Margoliouth,
Mu]:lammad (p.b.h.) could see that "they were men, and what they had done he
could do. "
2
His plans are said to have been facilitated by the prevailing
differences between the Jews and the Christians and between the latter's rival
sects, and at Madina he "claimed that it was his mission to put them right where
h di d
113
t ey sagree .
These Muir-Margoliouth assumptions have been adopted and developed by
Watt. Thus, he deals rather elaborately with what he calls the "relation of Islamic
teachings to Judaeo-Christian sources" and states that "one of the theses" of his
book, Muhammad at Mecca, is that the greatness of Islam is largely due to a
"fusion" of some Arab elements "with certain J udaeo-Christian conceptions. "
4
He
sets the theme on a wider plane and speaks about the influence of these "sources"
upon the then Arabs in general, or rather on Mubammad's (p.b.h.) environment,
as well as upon him individually.
5
Like his predecessors Watt holds that the
concept of monotheism was derived mainly from Christianity and Judaism.
Though not excluding the possibility of influence from the monotheistic groups
like the banfjs he discounts any "movement" as such towards monotheism
6
and
asserts that the "premonitions of monotheism among the Arabs must have been
due mainly to Christian and Jewish influences."
7
Like Muir and Margoliouth,
again, Watt traces these influences through the Arabs' contact with the Jews and
Christians in Arabia and with the Byzantine Empire, which was Christian and
"whose power and civilization they grearly admired", and also Abyssinia and even
Al-I;Iirah, which "was an outpost of the East Syrian or Nestorian Church."
8
Watt
also repeats the Muir-Margoliouth assumption that the idea of prophethood was
derived from Judaism and Christianity. The "idea that Hud and ~ a l i h were
I Ibid., 77.
2
Ibid .,78.
' Ibid., 76-77.
4
WArr,M.atM.,23.
5
Ibid., 25-29 and Excursus B, pp. 158-161; and Muhammad'.r Mecm, 36-38.
6
M. atM., 28; Muhammad'.r Mecca, 37-38.
7
M. atM., 27.
' Ibid.
prophets to 'Ad and Thamud", writes Watt, "was probably a pre-Qur'anic
instance of the application of the Judaeo-Christian conception of prophethood."
1
Having thus spoken of the "indirect environmental influence" Watt comes to
the question of "direct" influence and says that there is "good evidence" showing
that the Prophet had a "monotheist informant".
2
This "good evidence" he seeks
in the Qur'anic statement, 16:103, which, it may be mentioned here, is cited also
by Noldeke and Margoliouth to suggest that the Prophet had an informant.
3
This
passage gives a lie to the unbelievers' allegation to the same effect by pointing out
that the person they hinted at spoke a foreign tongue, but the Qur'an is in clear
Arabic.
4
Watt does not, however, cite Margoliouth. Instead, he adopts C.C.
Torrey's peculiar interpretation of the passage
5
saying that it shows that the
Prophet did not deny having a human teacher but only insisted that the teaching
came from heaven.
6
Proceeding on the basis of that assumption Watt next develops what
Margoliouth says about the supposed growth in accuracy in the Prophet's
knowledge of Biblical stories with the passage of time. Watt cites some seven
Qur'anic passages, which we shall presently notice, to show what he calls the
"growth in accuracy of the acquaintance with Old Testament stories, particularly
with regard to Abraham and Lot."
7
He adds that "there are a great many" of such
examples of growth in accuracy, without of course citing them, and says that in
view of these it is difficult for the "western critic" to resist the conclusion that the
Prophet's "knowledge of these stories was growing and that therefore he was
getting information from a person or persons familiar with them. "
8
In this
connection Watt further refers to the Qur'anic passage 11:51 which says that
neither the Prophet nor his people previously knew the stories of the Prophets
revealed to him. Watt says that the "embarrassment caused by such a verse to
those who want to uphold the sincerity of Muhammad" (p.b.h.) could be resolved
by supposing that he did not make any distinction between the "story" and the
"teaching" implicit in it and by interpreting the term nul;t CWe reveal) occurring in
I Ibid., 28.
2
Ibid., 27 and Excursus B, p. 159.
' Margoliouth, op.cit., 106-107.
4
The passage runs as:;.,.- '-1'/ 0U l.i. J ~ ! < , 1 1 0J.l>J, c>.iJI 0U
5
C.C.Torrey, The Jewi.rh Foundation ofi.rlam, op.cit., 43f.
6
Watt, M. atM., Excursus, B, p. 159.
7
Ibid.
' Ibid.
THE ALLEGED BORROWING FROM JUDAISM AND CVHRISTIANITY 31
the passage to mean we "cause to understand the teaching implicit in it or the
significance of', etc.
1
Reiterating the same views in his latest work and further citing the Qur'anic
statement in 25:4 Watt states that there might have been more than one
informant for Muhammad (p.b.h.) and that the Qur'an "does not deny that
Muhammad was receiving information in this way" but that it merely insists that
the material thus received "could not have been Qur'an, since a foreigner could
not express himself in clear Arabic." Watt thus once again states that what the
Prophet received from his informants "would be factual knowledge" but the
"meaning and interpretation of the facts" came to him "by the usual process of
revelation. "
2
Further, Watt recapitulates and expands the Muir-Margoliouth assumption that
the Prophet had obtained certain distorted and mistaken notions of these two
religions and those notions were reproduced in the Qur'an. Avoiding Muir's
insinuation against the "orthodox party" and the Syrian Church Watt says that
"the particular Jewish and Christian groups which influenced the Arabs" had
"many strange ideas". Examples of such strange notions, asserts Watt, are the
Qur'anic statement which "suggests that the Trinity consists of Father, Son and
Mary". This statement, emphasizes Watt, "is doubtless a criticism of some
nominally Christian Arabs who held this view". Watt further states that "much of
the detail" from the Jewish side also was incorporated in the Qur'an, but this
came "not from the sacred scripture but from secondary sources of various
types."
3
The same thing he repeats in his latest work saying that "some people in Mecca
wrongly supposed certain beliefs to be held by Jews and Christians", namely,
"that Christians took Jesus and Mary to be two gods apart from God, and that
'Uzayr [Ezra] to be the son of God."
4
These Qur'anic statements, asserts Watt,
"are palpably false" because "these were beliefs held by the Meccans" and
because, according to him, "it was not essential for God's purposes that false
ideas of this sort should be corrected", for He addressed the Arabs "in terms of
their existing beliefs" and the Qur'anic message could be communicated "without
correcting these beliefs."
5
Elaborating the same assumption Watt states that the
I Ibid
2
Muhammad'.r Mecca, 45.
' M. atM., 27-28.
4
Muhammad'.r Mecca, 2, 45.
' Ibid., 2, 44.
Qur'an addresses the Arabs in the first instance, speaking "in terms of their world
picture", including even points in which that picture was "mistaken". In support
of this statement he refers to the prevailing notion of the earth being a flat space
and quotes some seven Qur'anic passages to show that that mistaken notion was
reproduced in the Qur'an.
1
Again, like Muir and Margoliouth, more particularly the latter, Watt states that
Mul).ammad (p.b.h.), having observed the unsatisfactory social condition of his
land and people, and having been convinced of the need for bringing about a
reformation, thought that this could be done by means of a revelation or religion.
As Watt puts it, Mu]:lammad (p.b.h.) "may even have decided that this
[unsatisfactory state] could be got rid of by some form of religious belief. "
2
Echoing Margoliouth in a remarkable way, Watt further suggests that Mu]:lammad
(p.b.h.) launched a new monotheistic movement in order to avoid the political
implication of adopting Judaism or Christianity; "for Christianity was linked with
the Byzantine and the Abyssinian empires, and Judaism had support in the
Persian empire. In effect Islam gave the Arabs a monotheism independent of the
empires."
3
Watt winds up his discussion by adopting in effect Bell's observation
that for "the study of the life of Muhammad it is hardly necessary" to delineate
the relative importance of Jewish and Christian influences; for, he admits, "many
details are disputed". "The main necessity", he emphasizes, "is to realize tha,t such
things were 'in the air' before the Qur'an came to Muhammad and were part of
the preparation of himself and of his environment for his mission. "
4
Thus do the orientalists advance identical views and arguments. In general,
these arguments revolve round the following five assumptions:
(1) The circumstantial or environmental influence of Judaism and Christianity;
(2) The alleged specific instances of Mul).ammad's (p.b.h.) contact with
particular Christian individuals;
(3) The supposed Qur'anic evidence about his informant or informants;
(4) The supposed gradual growth in accuracy in the Qur'an's narration of the
biblical stories; and
(5) The alleged reproduction of contemporary scientific errors in the Qur'an.
1
Ibid., 2, 5-7. The Qur'anic passages quoted are: 2:22, 13:3; 20:53; 51:47-48; 71:19-20; 78:6-7 and 79:27-33. See below for
discussion on these passages.
2
Ibid., 51.
' Ibid., 38.
4
M. atM., 29
THE ALLEGED BORROWING FROM JUDAISM AND CVHRISTIANI1Y 33
The following is a discussion of the first four categories of arguments. The
fifth, the alleged errors in the Qur'an, is dealt with separately in the next chapter.
III. ON THE ENVIRON:MENTAL INFLUENCE IN GENERAL
It is an acknowledged fact that there were Jews and Christians in Arabia; the
former mainly at Yathrib (Madina) and the latter mainly at Najran. So far as
Makka, the birth-place of the Prophet and the immediate scene of his activities
was concerned, there were only a few Christians of humble social and intellectual
status, being either slaves or petty retailers, and mostly immigrants. One or two
original inhabitants of Makka like 'Uthman ibn al-f:luwayrith and Waraqah ibn
Nawfal had turned Christians, the former out of personal or political
considerations, and the latter as a result of his search for a better faith. Also the
Makkans conducted trading operations with such countries as Syria and Abyssinia
where Christianity prevailed. It is therefore quite understandable that the
knowledgeable section of the Makkan community, including Mul).ammad (p.b.h.)
had been aware of both Judaism and Christianity as systems of religion and did
doubtless also know something of the common beliefs and practices of the
votaries of those religions. Indeed all the three of our scholars, Muir, Margoliouth
and Watt, are at one in stating, after all their arguments, that Mul).ammad's
knowledge of Christianity was at best second-hand, "superficial" and erroneous.
Margoliouth even states that one reason why Mul).ammad (p.b.h.) did not
embrace either of these religions was that he realized he could not pretend to
such knowledge of it as its older members possesses. Now, this being obviously
the most that the orientalists think was the level of Mul).ammad's supposedly
acquired knowledge of the two religions, the question that naturally suggests itself
to the general reader is: Is it reasonable to assume that a person of Mul).ammad's
(p.b.h.) intelligence and common sense, as on all hands he is admitted to have
been endowed with, would proceed to propound a new religion and challenge the
correctness of both the prevailing systems of Judaism and Christianity on the
basis of a mere hearsay and superficial knowledge of these systems of faiths? The
orientalists, although they spare no pains to prove ambition and preparations on
the Prophet's part to play the role he did, would just not address themselves to
this simple and natural question. The inherent weakness and inconsistency in the
orientalists' approach lies in the fact that they suggest , on the one hand, that the
Prophet was ambitious and therefore careful enough to avoid the political
implications of embracing either Judaism or Christianity and, on the other, that
he was careless enough to proceed to found a new religion by picking up
information from bazaar gossips and Jewish story-tellers at wine shops!
The fact is that it is as naive to say that Islam is an amalgam of second-hand
information about Judaism and Christianity with some Arab elements, as it is
absurd to s u g g ~ s t that the Prophet was not cognizant of the two religious
systems. There is no doubt that the concepts of prophethood, revelation and of
Allah as Supreme Lord were known to the pre-Islamic Arabs. The existence of
these concepts does not, however, ipso facto prove they were derived from the
Jews, although the latter undoubtedly possessed these concepts as well. In so far
as the concept of prophethood is concerned, the memory of Ibrahim as Prophet
and founder of the Ka'ba which the Arabs universally cherished, and the
Abrahamic rites like ftC!JJ or pilgrimage to the Ka 'ba were unquestionably
pre-Jewish and pre-Christian. Similarly the concept of Allah as Supreme Lord was
known to the pre-Islamic Arabs independently of any Jewish or Christian
influence. The concept was in fact a remnant of the teachings of Ibrahim which
had spread in Arabia before the coming into existence of either Judaism or
Christianity. So was the concept of banfj as a worshipper of one God, which also
finds mention in the Qur'an. The orientalists of course recognize the existence of
the concept of Allah among the pre-Islamic Arabs; and of late Watt pays special
attention to this point.
1
But while quoting a number of Qur'anic passages that
clearly show the existence of this concept of Allah among the pre-Islamic Arabs,
and while quoting Teixidor's study of the inscriptions to show that belief in a high
or supreme God was common throughout the Semitic Near East in the
Greco-Roman period
2
and thus trying to illustrate the Prophet's indebtedness to
the prevailing ideas, Watt is very careful in not tracing this concept of a "high
God" in any way to the so-called Judaeo-Christian influence. Nor does he explain
how this particular concept came into existence and continued to survive among
the polytheistic Arabs. He of course suggests, like Margoliouth, that the "archaic"
religion or paganism was in decline because, according to him, of a growing
awareness of the powerlessness of the gods and goddesses.
3
Also, following
others, he attempts to explain the composition of the word Allah.
4
Yet, neither
1
WAIT, Mubammad'.r Mecca, 31-36.
2
Ibid., 35, quoting Javier Teixidor, The Pagan God: Popular Religion in the Greco-Roman Period, Princeton, 1977, pp. 17, 161.
3
WAIT, M. atM., 23-24; Muhammad'.r Mea-a, 35. See also MARGOLIOUTH, op.,it., 24.
4
WAIT, M. atM., 26-27. See also Hitti, op.dt., 100-101.
this nor the supposed decline in paganism does in itself explain the emergence of
the concept of Allah as "high God".
As regards the concept of monotheism the Qur'an, and for that matter the
Prophet, accused the contemporary Arabs, Jews and Christians of having
deviated from the original teachings of their prophets and of having degenerated
into polytheism. There is thus no question of his having taken over the concept
of monotheism from the Jews and the Christians, because he so unequivocally
controverted and rejected what they said to be the teachings of their scriptures. In
fact, even a cursory glance at the Qur'an unmistakably brings out two undeniable
facts. First, the Qur'an does not claim any originality in the sense of presenting a
new religion. It claims merely to revive and fulftl the same message which it
maintains - and here is its originality - Allah has given to all the Prophets
throughout the ages and to every people. More specifically, it claims its teachings
to be the same as those of Prophets Ibrahim, Musa and 'Isa (p.b.t.), about all of
whom it speaks in glowing terms. Second, it very uncompromisingly rejects and
denounces the polytheistic beliefs and practices of the contemporary Arabs and
also of the Jews and Christians. These two-fold notes of the Qur'an are just the
reverse of what the orientalists suggest. They say that Mul).ammad (p.b.h.) had no
first-hand knowledge of their scriptures. He had neither read them himself, nor
was any Arabic version of them available at the time. The Qur'an, and for that
matter the Prophet, emphatically say, on the other hand, that their teachings are
essentially the same as those of the original scriptures of the Jews and the
Christians. Secondly, the orientalists insist that Mul).ammad (p.b.h.) derived his
knowledge from those of his contemporary Jews and Christians whom he
happened to meet. The Qur'an, and therefore the Prophet, insist that the
contemporary Jews and Christians were mistaken and misguided and had
deviated from the teachings of their original scriptures, particularly in respect of
monotheism.
The only conclusion which any reasonable and impartial observer can draw
from this situation is, first, that Mul;ammad (p.b.h.) did not make up his teachings
by picking up information from here and there; for in that case he would have
feigned originality, would not have traced his teachings to the previous scriptures
or would have at least so chosen his audience as were not likely to detect the
sources of his information. Secondly, he had not obtained his information from
his contemporaries because he found fault with them and set about to reform
them and to bring them back to the original teachings of the previous prophets.
Thirdly, since, while saying that his teachings were the same as those of the
previous scriptures, he at the same time stated that he had not read any of them,
and since the orientalists also agree that he had not read any of those scriptures,
his source of knowledge must have been something else than either a first-hand
perusal of those scriptures or a second-hand knowledge of them obtained from
his contemporaries.
Some of the orientalists, particularly Watt, of course suggest a third possibility,
that of there being a monotheist informant or informants for the Prophet. This
assumption raises more questions than it solves. The so-called Qur'anic evidence
on which this assumption is based would be examined presently. It may only be
noted here that the Qur'an, far from indicating that the Prophet had any human
informant, does just the opposite thing of denying such allegation made by the
unbelievers.
It has also been suggested, particularly by Margoliouth, that the Prophet,
having got the name of Ibrahim from the Jews and the Christians, traced his
teachings to him in order to claim precedence over both Judaism and Christianity.
Further, it has been said that the Prophet's denunciation of the Jews and the
Christians began after his break with the former at Madina. These two
suggestions are manifestly untenable. The Abrahamic tradition, the Ka'ba and the
rites connected with them existed there for ages before the Prophet's birth. If he
had invented the tradition and thus related his teachings to Ibrahim, he (the
Prophet) would have been simply ridiculed not only by his adversaries but also by
his followers. Secondly, the rejection of the concept of sonship or fathership of
God and the assertion that both the Jews and the Christians had deviated from
the teachings of their original scriptures had been very distinctly made in the
Makkan surahs of the Qur'an, long before the migration to Madina and the
subsequent development of enmity with the Jews of that place.
The truth is that it was impossible to get an impression of monotheism by any
amount of observation of and acquaintance with the Judaism and the Christianity
of the day. Even a perusal of the extant scriptures would have hardly conveyed
such an impression. The God in the Old Testament is depicted as essentially a
tribal god, openly partial to the children of Israel. Such a god could scarcely
attract the imagination, far less the adoration, of a non-Israelite population. The
New Testament, on the other hand, obscured and blurred the concept of One
God by inextricably tagging it with the manifestly difficult and admittedly
mysterious doctrine of the Trinity which conceived God not in easily
understandable Unity but in "God the Father", "God the Son" and "God the
Holy Ghost", these being not distinct qualities of a single entity but three distinct
and separate entities. Moreover, the doctrine of incarnation on which the concept
of "God the Son" rests is essentially no different from the same doctrine of the
Hindus. Like the Christians, a modern Hindu, while acknowledging the existence
of many gods and goddesses and a sort of Trinity in the existence of Brahma,
Vishnu and Siva (Trfdeva), would equally assiduously assert that his sacred texts do
in the ultimate analysis speak of One and Only True God,
1
though a non-Hindu
finds it difficult to accept that Hinduism inculcates monotheism. And so far as
the practices of the Jews and the Christians of the time were concerned,. these
were acknowledgedly beset with the most debasing corruption and superstitions
and as such they were the farthest removed from being model monotheists. Muir
indirectly admits this fact when he squarely decries what he calls the "misnamed
catholicism" of the Empire and the "orthodox party" of the Syrian church. The
situation indeed continued to deteriorate for several centuries after the emergence
of Islam. In fact, the various reform movements in Christianity, particularly the
Cluniac Movement, the Iconoclastic Movement and the Reformation started by
Martin Luther bear an eloquent testimony to the depth of corruption and
superstition into which the Christians and the Christianity of the day had
degenerated. In a way, all these reform movements and the subsequent emphasis
on monotheism, in spite of the adherence to the doctrines of the Trinity and the
divinity of Christ, are by and large an impact of the uncompromising monotheism
enunciated and propagated by Islam. In any case, so far as the state of Christianity
in the 7th-8th century Syria and the neighbouring lands were concerned, it was
more likely to repel than to attract any outside observer. Truly has it been said
that the "self-conceit" which deludes one to assume that the spectacle of
"national" profession of Christianity in Syria impressed the "young reformer"
M u ~ a m m a d (p.b.h.) has no foundation in historical fact.
2
1
See for instance the modem Vedandists' views, particularly the views expressed by Devendranath Thakur and his
associates in the mid-nineteenth century, M. M. Au, The Bengali Reaction to Chri.rtian Mir.rionary Activitie.r, 1833-1857,
Chittagong, 1956, chapters II and III.
2
HuART, "Une nouvelle source du Koran", Journal A.riatique, 1924, p. 129. See also George Sale, Ob.reroation.r HirtoriqueJ et
Critique.r .rur le Mahometirme, 68-71.
V. THE ALLEGED INSTANCES OF CONTACTWITHJUDAEO-CHRISTIAN
EXPERTS
The orientalists emphasize the well-known facts of the Prophet's two journeys
to Syria, once in company with his uncle when he was about twelve years of age,
and again as leader of Khadijah's (r. a.) caravan when about twenty-five years of
age. On both these occasions he is said to have come across a Christian monk,
Bahira on the first occasion and Nestorius on the second. As already pointed out,
doubts and improbabilities surround these traditions and the orientalists
themselves, particularly Muir, reject the stories as "puerile". Nevertheless he
assumes that Mul;lammad (p.b.h.) "lost no opportunity of enquiring into the
practices and tenets of the Syrian Christians or conversing with the monks and
clergy who fell in his way." The same assumption is made in a more exaggerated
way by Margoliouth; while Watt also subscribes to the view saying: "Muhammad
had presumably some contact with Christians on his trading journeys to Syria.''
1
It must be emphasized that the trade journeys were made to a predominantly
or wholly Christian land. There is thus no question of not making any contact
with Christians. What is necessary to note is that there is no reference whatsoever
in the sources to the Prophet's having taken advantage of those journeys to seek
information about Christianity from any particular monk or any Christian
individual. Even the doubtful accounts of meeting with Bahira and Nestorius
speak only of the enquiries and opinions of those two individuals, and not at all
of the Prophet himself. Also, on the occasion of the reported meeting with
Bahira the Prophet was a mere boy of about twelve and therefore unlikely to
engage in any serious academic discussion. Nor could the nature of the journeys
afford him any leisure to seek diversion in such educational exercise. If he had
made any such educational contact, it would have not escaped unnoticed by the
scores of others of the leading men of Makka who had accompanied him on both
the occasions and many of whom subsequently opposed his mission. Yet, we find
from the Qur'an that the unbelieving Quraysh leaders accused the Prophet of
having allegedly received instructions only from a foreigner who happened to be
in Makka and further alleged that a group of other people, also presumably in the
city, composed the text of the revelation for him and read it unto him morning
and evening. Had Mul;lammad (p.b.h.) contacted during his trade journeys to
Syria any Christian monk or layman for obtaining information or even for casual
1
WATT, Muhammad's Mecca, 36.
discussion, the Quraysh opponents, many of whom had accompanied him to
Syria, would not have failed to make the most of it in their attack against him.
That no such allegation was made by them is a decisive proof that he had not
sought information about Christianity or Judaism from anyone in the course of
his journeys to Syria.
The second so-called instance is the tradition relating to Quss ibn Sa'ida to
which Muir refers specifically and Margoliouth alludes indirectly. It is stated that
the Prophet heard Quss preach at the 'Uaka? fair
1
This tradition is unanimously
classified as spurious and is rejected as such.
2
Specially, one of its narrators,
MuQ.ammad ibn al-Ballaj al-Lakhmi, is condemned as a confirmed liar
(kadhdhdb).
3
And even according to this spurious report, the Prophet was only
one of the audience and did not make any enquiries as such with the speaker.
The orientalists' use of this report without any indication of its weakness and
untrustworthiness is indicative of how such materials are uncritically accepted and
cited to support a particular assumption.
Similarly weak is the "instance" of Zayd ibn f:larithah of which Muir makes
special mention. It is to be observed that Muir tactfully refrains from saying
directly that Zayd or his parents were Christians, but indirectly introduces the
subject by saying that Christianity had made progress among Zayd's ancestors and
suggests that Zayd, though a boy when sold as a slave, must have remembered
something of Christianity and must have communicated that knowledge to his
foster father Mu}:lammad (p.b.h.). Nothing could be a more far-fetched inference
than this; for whatever the boy Zayd had learnt about Christianity and of that
whatever he could have managed to remember after his disconnection with that
system for at least a quarter of a century, it could be of very little use to any
serious enquirer and would-be-reformer. Moreover, had Zayd acted in any way as
teacher in Christianity for the Prophet and had the latter formulated his doctrines
on the basis of the knowledge imparted to him by Zayd, the latter would surely
have no genuine faith in the Prophet's mission and would not have followed him
so dedicatedly till his death.
1
The tradition is recorded in a number of works. See for instance 'ABu AL-QAsiM SuLAYMAN IBN AI;IMAD AL-TABARANi,
AI-MuJam ai-Kabir (ed. 'ABD AL-MAJiD AL-SALAFi), XII, 88-89; NuR AL-DiN AL-HAITHAMi, Majma' ai-Zawd'id wa Manba'
ai-Fawi'id, IX, Beirut, 1986/1406, pp. 421-422; AL-BAYHAQi, Dald'il ai-Nubuwwah, I, 453, 454-456 and 457-465.
2
See for instance 'ABu AL-FARAJIBN AL-]Awzi, AI-Mawqtl'at, I, 213-214; AL-SUYIJTi, AI-La'dli ai-Ma.(nu'ah, I, 183-1192; 'ABU
AL-f;lASAN 'ALI IBN IBN 'IRAQ AL-KANANi (907-963), Tanifh a/-Shari'ah af-Marju'ah 'an a/-'ahddith a/-Shanf'ah
ai-Mawc{li'ah, I, 3rd impression, Beirut, 1981, pp. 241-243.
3
See for instance AL-DHAHABi, Mizdn ai-I'tidd/ Ff Naqd ai-Rijdl (ed. 'Au MUI;IAMMAD AL-BAJJAwi), III, No. 7351, p. 509;
III, No. 7349, pp. 279-280.
As regards the instance of Waraqah ibn Nawfal, great emphasis has indeed
been placed on it by the orientalists. There is no doubt that Khaclijah (r.a.) took
the Prophet, shortly after his receipt of the first revelation, to Waraqah for
consultation. This fact, as already pointed out, shows on the one hand that the
Prophet did not entertain any ambition or intention to play the role of a Prophet.
On the other hand it shows that on his part Waraqah also considered him a
sincere and unpretentious person. Had the Prophet previously received
instruction in Christianity from Waraqah, he would have formed a very different
opinion about the former. In fact, except for this meeting, there is no indication
in the sources of the Prophet's having previously consulted Waraqah on any
subject, though under the circumstances it is reasonable to assume that the two
knew each other from close quarters. The same reason which has been indicated
above in connection with the Prophet's journey to Syria and his alleged
acquisition of Christian knowledge in the course of that journey may be adduced
the more strongly in the present case. Had the Prophet been in the habit of
receiving instruction in Christianity from Waraqah, that would have formed a
very strong point in the Quraysh leaders' attack on and criticism of the Prophet.
IV. THE SUPPOSED QUR'ANIC EVIDENCE
ABOUT A MONOTHEIST INFORMANT OR INFORMANTS
This brings us to the subject of the Qur'anic statement about the Makkan
leaders' allegation that the Prophet received instruction from others. It is mainly
on this allegation of the unbelievers that Watt and his predecessors have based
the assumption of a monotheist informant or informants for the Prophet. In
doing so, however, Watt, or rather C. C. Torrey, from whom he has taken his cue,
has grossly misinterpreted the Qur'anic texts. To see how this has been done it is
necessary to quote in original the couple of passages cited by Watt in support of
his assumption. These passages together with Watt's translation, stand as follows:
0U i,l., J ...,Ji 0 (.Slli 0U _A WI 0} ...Lil J
"We know they say : It is only a person teaches him. The tongue of the one they hint at is
foreign, but this (the Qur'an) is (in) a clear Arabic tongue." [16:103] (Muhammad's Mecca, 45).
J_.; 4-,:::5"1 .J,}JI.j1 _).Lll_,.ili J .... i} -..;\.>.( J olpl d;i '}ii,l., 011)_;5' .,:r..UI Jli J
.fv.
"The unbelievers say, This is only a falsehood he invented; other people helped him with it...
They said, Old-World fables, he has had written; they are dictated to him morning and evening."
[25:4-5] (Ibid.)
THE ALLEGED BORROWING FROM JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANilY 41
Watt, following Torrey,
1
interprets these statements, particularly the first, saying
"that Muhammad does not deny having a human teacher but only insists that the
teachings came down from heaven."
2
Elaborating the same statement Watt
writes in his latest work that "the Qur'an does not deny that Muhammad was
receiving information in this way" but only "insists that any material he received
could not have been the Qur' an, since a foreigner could not express himself in
clear Arabic". Hence what he was given by the informant "would be factual
knowledge, whereas the meaning and interpretation of the facts would come to
him by the usual process of revelation. "
3
This interpretation of Watt (and Torrey) is totally wrong. It is also an attempt
on Watt's part to fit in these texts, particularly the first passage, his notion of
revelation (wa!!J) which he describes "prophetic intuition", a form of the
Prophet's own "consciousness", something in the nature of "meaning" and
"interpretation" distinct from the facts and words, etc. That notion of Watt's will
be discussed when we come to the subject of revelation.
4
Here it should be noted
that the most that can be made out of the first passage (16:103) is that there was a
foreign person at Makka who had presumably had some knowledge of either
Christianity or Judaism and who happened to be an acquaintance of the Prophet.
Obviously this fact was taken advantage of by the Prophet's opponents to allege
that he was being "taught" by that person to produce what was being given as
revelation. The Qur'an refers to this allegation by way of denying it and giving a
lie to it. By no stretch of the imagination could it be suggested that the Qur'an
does not deny the fact of receipt of information from the person alluded to and
that it merely "insists" that the material thus received "could not have been the
Qur' an, since a foreigner could not express himself in clear Arabic." This latter
phrase, "could not express himself in clear Arabic", is Watt's own interpretation
or "tendential" shaping. The clear statement of the Qur'an is that the tongue of
the person insinuated is 'aJamt, i.e., "foreign"; and this is a very strong form of
denial of the unbelievers' allegation. But even allowing the twist in meaning given
by Watt, does it at all sound logical to say that a foreigner, who could not express
himself in clear Arabic, would nonetheless be able to instruct the Prophet, who
by all accounts did not know any foreign language, in the details and subtleties of
Christianity and Judaism?
1
C. C. TORREY, The Jewish Foundation eft:, op.dt, 43ff.
2
WAIT, M. atM., 159.
' WAIT, Muhammad'.r Mecca, 45.
' Infra, chaps. VI and VII.
In fact it is grossly misleading and somewhat inconsistent to say, as Torrey and
Watt do, that Mu]:lammad (p.b.h.) does not deny having a "human teacher but
only insists that the teaching came down from heaven." If the insistence was that
"the teaching came down from heaven", does it not constitute a denial of a
human teacher? But the insistence was not simply on that the teaching came
down from heaven. It was more strongly and consistently stated that the "text" of
the revelation also came from the heaven. In fact the main challenge of the
Qur'an was and has been to any one to come forward with a text similar to any of
its surahs. The unbelievers' allegation also had reference to the preparation of the
text of the revelation by the person insinuated; not with regard to the mere fact or
information contained in the revelation. The term yu 'allimu in contemporary
Arabic parlance meant not simply imparting information but communicating a
text which was usually committed to memory, transmission of knowledge being
at that time almost wholly oral. And because the allegation had reference to the
text of the revelation, the denial of it is made all the stronger by simply pointing
out the utter unreasonableness of the insinuation, that is, by pointing out that the
person insinuated was simply incapable of producing a clear Arabic text. The
denial contains also an element of ridiculing the insinuation. Indeed the nature of
the unbelievers' allegation is more clearly specified in the second passage, 25:4-5,
quoted by Watt and to which we shall presently turn our attention.
Watt's interpretation of the passage 16:103 is wrong in three ways. In the first
place, it totally ignores the context which is that it refers to the unbelievers'
allegation for the sake of giving a lie to it.
1
This is clear not only from the passage
itself but also from its two immediately preceding 'qyahs, (i.e. 101 and 102). Thus
'qyah 101 refers to the unbelievers' allegation that the Prophet was a "forger" and
then rebuts it by saying that those who indulged in such allegation did not really
know. "They say, thou art a forger; but most of them know not. "
2
The same
denial is continued and stated in a positive form in 'qyah 102 which emphasizes
that the revelation was truly brought down from "your Lord" by the angel Jibril-
"Say, it has been brought down by the Spirit of Holiness Oibril) from your Lord."
3
/{yah 103, which is quoted by Watt, is merely a continuation of the same topic of
1
It may be noted that Watt and his preceptor Bell tend to belittle the context in interpreting a Qur'anic passage by
assuming that the unit of revelation was almost always a short passage. But no sudden change of subject-matter, nor the
style of language, nor of the form of address from third person to first person, etc., which according to them indicate the
disconnection of a particular passage from its preceding or following 'iJyah.r, are applicable in the present instance.
2
The text runs as follows: ~ _,..1., '! r-" )S1 J< _;.;- .;..;I L.;i l_,lu
3
The text runs as: .!-4
1
.:.r' ..r.lill CJJ J) J.i
the unbelievers' allegation and the same emphatic denial of it. In fact the
expression: "And indeed We know they say" ...I..Al J), particularly the
particle and pronoun 'annahum clearly indicate this connection with the previous
'qyahs. In his interpretation, thus, Watt ignores the context altogether and in effect
simply adopts the allegation of the Prophet's adversaries.
Secondly, Watt and Torrey are mistaken in saying that the Qur'an does not
deny what he calls the receipt of information from the foreigner. Leaving aside
the context, the 'qyah 103 itself contains an unmistakable denial in the term
yulf;iduna. It bears a derogatory sense and a reproach, namely, that of deviation
from the truth and the just course, or perversion. All the competent authorities
are agreed that 'ill;ad means "falsely stating" or "falsifying", takdhb

In fact
the very verb yulf;iduna occurs at two other places in the Qur'an, namely, 7:180
and 41 :40; and at both these places it clearly means a wrongful and unwarranted
ace. Significantly enough, A.J. Arberry in his translation of the Qur'an renders the
expression at both the places as blaspheming - "and leave those who blaspheme
His names" and "Those who blaspheme Our signs."
3
More important still, the
Qur'an itself uses the root-word 'ilbad in apposition to or injustice at 22:25;
4
and A.J. Arberry rightly translates it :"And whosoever purposes to violate it
wrongfully" etc.
5
Hence, though Watt and Torrey translate the expression at
16:103 as simply "they hint at", its correct rendering should be "they wrongfully
suggest", "they unjustly hint at", "they unfairly insinuate", or some such words. It
may further be pointed out that the Arabic equivalent of "they hint at" is yushtrUna
'ild, not yulpiduna 'ild. Thus the correct meaning of the '4Jah 16:103 should be:
"We indeed know they allege that a human being tutors him. The language of the
individual they unjustly insinuate is foreign, while this (the Qur'an) is in clear
Arabic". Thus, far from there being no denial of the allegation, the text of the
'qyah clearly labels it as an 'ilf;dd, an unjust insinuation.
Thirdly, Watt also ignores the decisive rebuttal contained in the last part of the
'qyah where it is emphasized that the language of the individual they unjustly
1
See for instance IBN AL-' ATHIR, AI-Nihiiyah Fi Gharib al-lfadiih wa a!- 'Athir, Pt. IV; AL-ZAMAKHSHARi, AI-Ka.rh.rhdj; II,
Beirut, n.d., II, 429; AL-QURfUBi, Taf.rir, Pt. VII, 328 and Pt. X, 178 and MUJ;IM!MAD IBN 'ALi AL-SHAWKANi, Fatq eft:,
Pt.I, second impression, 1964/1383, p. 270 and Pt. III, 195.
2
The two statements run respectively as: (7:180) J_,.l..., jlS" \... .oJL....! J 0JJ....l,
01
.iJIIJ;> J
(41:40) '1 Ci41, J 0JJ....l,
01
.iJI Jl
' AJ.ARBERRY, The Koran, O.U.P. (Oxford Paperbacks), 1986, pp. 165,495.
4
The text runs as: (22-25) if .ui; ,wt; ...,; '-"if J
5
AJ.ARBERRY, op.dt., 336.
insinuate is "foreign". There is in fact a two-fold denial of the allegation in this
single statement. In the first place, since the person spoke a foreign tongue, it was
impossible on the Prophet's part, who did not know any foreign language, to
follow that person's "instruction" or "exposition". Secondly, as the Qur'an is in
clear Arabic, it could not have been composed for the Prophet by that individual.
Thus neither in the sense of communicating what is called "facts" or
"information", nor in the sense of formulating the text and wording of the
revelation could the foreigner act as "trainer" for the Prophet.
The denial of the unbelievers' insinuation is continued in the immediately
following two 'qyahs (16:104-105). 'Ayah 104 warns the unbelievers against the evil
consequences of their rejection of the "signs" of Allah, and '4Jah 105 retorts by
saying: "It is but they who believe not in the signs of Allah that forge falsehood;
and they are the ones who lie. "
1
Thus 16:103 together with its immediately preceding and following couple of
'4Jahs constitute a distinct unit of which the purport is to deny and rebut the
unbelievers' allegation in a very positive, forceful and unmistakable manner. It
should also be noted that there is nothing in these '4Jahs that warrants the
assumption that the unbelievers were referring only to the receipt of information
or facts as distinguished from their "meaning" and "interpretation", as Watt
would have us believe. On the contrary, the nature and wording of the denial,
especially the emphasis on the language of the person insinuated, make it obvious
that the allegation had reference to the Prophet's inability to produce, by himself,
the text of the revelation.
This nature of the unbelievers' allegation is more specifically spelt out in 25:4-5
which Watt quotes and which should be considered along with 16:103. The
passage 25:4-5 says that the unbelievers' allegation was that the Prophet had the
text of the revelation, which to them was only "old-world fables", written for him
and dictated to him morning and evening. It is noteworthy that in translating this
passage Watt omits the last part of '4Jah 4 which reads IJJj J L.J.l;, IJjl>. ...w , which
means: "they have indeed come up with an injustice and falsehood". Watt omits
to mention this last clause of the '4Jah obviously because it contradicts his false
suggestion that there is no denial in the Qur'an of the allegation made by the
unbelievers.
THE AlLEGED BORROWING FROM JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANI1Y 45
This passage 25:4-5 orrather this surah is unanimously regarded as earlier than
surah 16 in the order of revelation.
1
This is all the more reason why the allegation
contained in 16:103 should be considered in conjunction with the allegation in
25:4-5; for it would be obviously absurd on the unbelievers' part first to suggest
that the Prophet had the passages of the revelation written for him by others and
recited by them to him morning and evening, and then to state that he had only
obtained the "facts" and "information" from an individual. It is thus obvious that
the allegation of incapacity on the Prophet's part to produce the revelation by
himself had reference not simply to the "facts" and "information" but to the text
and language of the revelation as well. But whether one likes to assume that the
allegation had reference to facts and information alone, or whether one admits
the obvious fact that the allegation had reference to both the facts and the text,
the concluding part of 'qyah 25:4, which Watt chooses to withhold from his
readers, characterizes the unbelievers' allegation as a manifest injustice and
a palpable falsehood (zur). Nothing could be a stronger and clearer denial than
this.
Watt does mention that the Muslim commentators of the Qur'an are not in
agreement about the identity of the person or persons "hinted at" by the
unbelievers and give several names, "mostly of Christian slaves" in Makka.
2
But
what Watt fails to do is that he does not complete the story; nor does he pursue
the questions that naturally arise out of his assumption. These questions are: (a)
Why, after Mu};lammad (p.b.h.) had come forward with his claim to Prophethood
and after he had passed some time in publicly calling people to believe in his
mission - why any knowledgeable Jew or Christian should have come forward to
help promote his claim by supplying him with information about Judaism and
Christianity? (b) Why the Quraysh leaders, with their power and influence and
1
This .rilrah ( a/-Furqdn) is placed between the 38th and the 42nd in the order of revelation by classical Muslim scholars.
On the other hand, orientalists like RODWELL and NOLDEKE count it as the 66th in the order of revelation, and MuiR places
it as the 74th. Silrah 16 on the other hand, is placed between the 67th and 72nd by the Muslim scholars; while
RoDWELL and NOLDEKE place it as the 73rd, MuiR puts it as the 88th and A. JEFFERY as the 46th. (See MuHAMMAD
KHALIFA, The Sublime Qur'dn and Orienta/ism, London and New York, 1983, Appendix II; and MUHAMMAD 'IzzAT
DARWAZAH, Sirat a/-Ra.ri/1 eft:, I. Beirut, n.d. (1400 H.], pp. 145-149. -
2
Watt, Mumammad'.r Mecca, 45. Several names were indeed suggested. The most frequently mentioned name is Jabr, a
Christian slave of Al-Fakih ibn al-Mughlrah, who had embraced Islam. Ibn Isl;laq says that this Jabr was a slave of Bam1
al-l;Iagrami. Another name suggested is Ya'ish, a slave of Banu al-I;Iaqrami or Banu al-Mughlrah, or of Banu 'Amir ibn
Lu'ayy. It is further said that Banu al-I;Ia4rarni had two slaves, one named Jabr and the other named Yasar or Nabt. They
were sword-smiths and the Prophet is stated to have occasionally visited them and talked to them. Ibn 'Abbas says that
the person referred to was Bal'am, a Christian who had some knowledge of the Bible. According to Al-QurttJbi, the
person alluded to was a Greek Christian at Makka named Maysara. Another report says he was 'Addas, a servant of
'Utbah ibn Rabi'ah. A still another view is that he was 'Abs, a servant of I;Iuwayrith ibn al-'Uzz:l. See AL-QURl;tJBi,
Tafsir,X, 177-178 and AL-ZAMAKHSHARi AI-Ka.rh.rhdj; II, 429.
their knowledge and control of affairs of the then not very big town of Makka,
and especially of their constant watch upon the activities of the Prophet and his
acquaintances - why did they not make use of any such "informant" to expose
the Prophet's "pretensions"? (c) If, on the other hand, such "informant" or
"informants" were from among the Christian and Jewish converts to Islam, why
should they have continued to have faith in the Prophet's mission and leadership
when they found out that he needed their knowledge and help in formulating
what he gave out as revelation from Allah? Significantly enough, Watt does not
raise these very pertinent questions, let alone answering them. If he did raise the
questions, he would have found that the Muslim commentators have made it
clear that the Quraysh leaders made the allegation in question because of the
existence in the ranks of the Muslims a few Christian converts and that the
Makkan leaders did not stop by simply making the allegation. They tortured a
number of such converts in order to extort an admission from them to the effect
that Mul)ammad (p.b.h.) had obtained help from them. It is further mentioned
that one of such victims of oppression, Jabr, when persecuted and tortured to the
extreme, gave out the significant reply: "It is not I who teaches Muhammad,
rather it is he who teaches and guides me. "
1
V. THE SO-CALLED GROWTH IN ACCURACY IN BIBLICAL INFORMATION
Indeed, it does not at all stand to reason that a person of Mul)ammad's (p.b.h.)
intelligence and common sense would obtain from hearsay and secondary sources
a perfunctory and superficial knowledge of the contents of the Judaeo-Christian
scriptures, which is what the orientalists suggest at the most, and would then
proceed, on the basis of that knowledge, to utter doctrines and stories claiming
them to be divine revelation. Yet the orientalists not only advance such an absurd
proposition but even go further to suggest in effect that the Prophet was
simpleton and rash enough to give out as revelation whatever little he learnt at
first of a particular Old-Testament story and subsequently modified or improved
upon it as he learnt more of it. Thus, citing a number of Qur'anic passages
relating to Ibrahim and Lut (p.b.t.) which will be considered presently and which
he thinks show "the growth in accuracy of the acquaintance with Old-Testament
stories" Watt concludes that "Muhammad's knowledge of these stories was
1
Tafsir, X, 177.
growing and that therefore he was getting information from a person or persons
familiar with them."
1
The passages cited by Watt are 37:135 C; 26:171 E(D); 27:58 E(D); 7:81 D-E;
15:60 DE; 1:83 E+ and 29:32 E+. It may be noted that Watt follows Flugel's
numbering of the 'qyahs which differs slightly from the current and standard
numbering; but there is no difficulty in identifying the passages by looking at the
meaning. He does not quote the passages in original, nor does he give their
translation. Also, while citing only one 'qyah of each surah he evidently has in view
a number of them relating to the topic. The letters placed beside each 'qyah
number are, as Watt mentions, indicative of Bell's dating of the passages, C
standing for Makkan, E for early Madinan and E + for Madinan period.
2
It may be noted at the outset that the assumption of "growth in accuracy" is
based essentially upon the above mentioned dating of the passages. But this
dating is acknowledged to be only "provisional"
3
and Watt himself entertains
doubts about its accuracy
4
. Moreover, in his latest work he discards Bell's dating
in favour ofR. Blachere's which closely follows that ofNoldeke.
5
Also the way in
which two letters indicating two different periods, sometimes one in brackets, are
placed beside an 'qyah, is confusing. It should also be noted that all the passages
cited are counted as Makkan by the classical Muslim scholars. In any case, an
assumption of gradual growth in accuracy based upon a system of dating about
the accuracy of which the author himself is in doubt and which he discards in his
latest work is hazardous and misleading.
Apart from the question of dating, however, the passages cited by Watt to
prove his view themselves do not really sustain the theory of "growth in
accuracy" as such. Thus, the first point which Watt attempts to make is that in the
two first mentioned passages (37:135 and 26:171) the member of Lut's "party"
not saved is "an old woman", in all the other passages it is his wife. This
statement of Watt's is not correct and is clearly a misunderstanding of the two
passages in question. The statement at both the places starts with 'ilia, "except",
which shows that it is merely a continuation of what precedes in the passage. It is
to be noted that in the 'qyah preceding at each place the material term is 'ahl.
Hence the meaning at both the places 1s that all of Lufs 'ahl except "an old
' WAIT, M. atM., 159 (Excursus B).
2
Ibid., IX.
' Ibid.
4
WAIT, "The dating of the Qur'an: A review of Richard Bell's theories". j.RA.S., 1957, pp. 46-56 (especially pp. 54-65)
5
WAIT, Muhammad'.r Metm, 4.
48 11-IE QUR'AN AND THE ORIENTALISTS
woman" were saved. The primary meaning of 'ahl is "family", even "wife"; while
in a secondary or extended sense it may mean "people" or "inhabitants". This
secondary meaning is clearly inadmissible here; for it is obviously not the
intention of the passages in question to say that all of Lufs people were saved
except an old woman. Nor could it be suggested that among all those of Lufs
people who were punished and destroyed, there was only one old woman. The
obvious meaning of the two consecutive 'qyahs at each of the two passages
(37:134-135 and 26:170-171) is that all the members of Lufs family were saved
except "an old woman". Thus at both the places Lufs relationship with her is
expressed in an indirect way. The term "old woman" is used here out of
disapproval of her unbelief, not out of an ignorance of her relationship with Lut.
In all the other places, however, the relationship is expressed directly and
explicitly. There is thus no case of inaccuracy in the first two passages, nor of
"growth in accuracy" in the other five passages.
Similarly ill-conceived is Watt's second point. He says that in the above
mentioned passages there is "no awareness of the connexion between Abraham
and Lot"; whereas in the other passages "there is explicit mention of the
connexion with Abraham."
1
Now, a reference to the passages 15:60, 11:83 and 29:32 shows that "the
connexion between Abraham and Lot" which Watt finds in them is only an
indication of their contemporaneity. This comes out as an incidental detail of the
manner in which Allah's wrath and punishment befell Lut's people. These
passages tell that Allah sent some angels who, on their way to Lufs people, also
met Ibrahim, gave him the good tidings of another son to be born to him and
informed him that they were going to Lut's people to punish them. Thereupon
Ibrahim made some pleadings for Lut. Obviously, this incidental detail was not
called for in the other passages where the theme and context are different . In
fact, the emphasis of the first four passages (37:135; 26:171, 27:58 and 7:81) is on
Allah's favours upon the Prophets mentioned and how they were helped to
emerge successful through their trials and the enmity of their own people. The
emphasis of the other three passages (15:60, 11:83 and 29:32) is, on the other
hand, on the conduct of the Prophets' opponents and the evil consequences of
their opposition to and rejection of the message delivered to them. The first
group of four passages are addressed mainly to the Prophet and his followers by
1
WArr,M.atM.,159
11-IE ALLEGED BORROWING FROM JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANI1Y 49
way of reassuring and consoling them; the other three are addressed mainly to the
unbelievers by way of warning them about the ultimate evil consequences of their
disbelief and opposition. Hence in the first group of four passages no details are
given of the retribution that befell the rejecters of the truth, nor is there a
mention of the angels who acted as the agents of such retribution upon the
people of On the other hand, in the other three passages such details are
given, including the coming of the angels through whose conversation with
!braham the so-called "connexion" between him and Lut appears. There is thus
here, again, no deficiency as such in the first four passages, nor any growth of
accuracy in the other three passages.
It should be mentioned here that the Qur'an refers to historical events and the
stories of the previous Prophets not for the sake of narrating history or telling a
story; it does so essentially for the sake of illustrating a lesson or drawing a moral;
most frequendy to emphasize the fact that all the Prophets preached the doctrine
of monotheism Hence different or the same aspects of the life-story of a
particular Prophet are mentioned at different places; and nowhere is a particular
historical event or the story of a Prophet narrated in full and at a stretch, as is
usually the case with ordinary history or story books. This apparent repetition or
partial narration of the stories has been seized by the orientalists to advance the
theory of "growth in accuracy". But a careful look at the passages, or rather the
surahs, would at once expose the speciousness of the theory. It may also be
pointed out that the mere non-mention of a detail, which is not called for by the
theme and context at one place, and the mention of that detail at another place
where the theme and context demand it, is no ground for suggesting inaccuracy
in the first instance, and growth in accuracy in the second. Again, even the
gradual unfolding of facts and details does not in itself prove that a human
informant or informants were supplying information to the Prophet. The whole
of the teachings of Islam in the Qur'an, the rules and duties, are indeed spelt out
gradually and over a period of some twenty-three years. To cite this fact as proof
of the Prophet's supposedly gradual acquisition of knowledge from some human
tutor or tutors would be a height of presumption.
Apart from these reasons, a closer look at the passages shows that there is
indeed no deficiency in information as such in the four first mentioned passages
or surahs. For, not to speak of the Prophets sent to the 'Ad and the Thamud
peoples (i.e. Hud and $alih), who are mentioned in them but who do not find any
so THE QUR'AN AND THE ORIENTALISTS
mention in the Bible, even with regard to Ibrahim such details are given in these
surahs as are not to be found in the Old-Testament. Thus, it is in these surahs that
Ibrahim is depicted as a propagator of monotheism and a very clear account is
given of his struggles for its sake, his argumentation with his father and people
over their mistaken beliefs, his denunciation and breaking of the idols, his ordeal
by fire, his travel to Hijaz, etc. None of these aspects of his life-story is
mentioned anywhere in the Old-Testament. On the other hand, in the other three
passages where a "growth in accuracy" is assumed on account of the mention in
them of the coming of the angels and their conversation with Ibrahim, it is
noteworthy that the Qur'anic account of this incident differs materially from that
of the Old-Testament. For instance, it is clearly mentioned in the three passages
under reference that Ibrahim grew curious about his "guests" (the angels in
human forms) only when they declined to partake of the meal prepared for them,
which led to their disclosing their identity and their further conversation with him
including the giving of the good tidings of another son to be born to him and
their commission about the punishment of Lut's people. The Old-Testament, on
the other hand, simply states that as soon as Ibrahim saw "three men" he "ran to
meet them from the tent door", invited them to be his guests, and on their
acceptance of it, prepared a meal for them, "and they did eat" of it.
1
Similarly they
"did eat" the food prepared for them by Lut.
2
Thus neither is a case of deficiency
in information established in respect of the first four passages in question, nor is a
case of dependence upon the Old-Testament details proved in respect of the
other three passages. In both the instances the Qur'an goes beyond the
Old-Testament and also differs materially from it. Hence the sources of
Mul;lammad's (p.b.h.) information must have been other than the extant
Old-Testament and any other human being conversant with it; and no theory of
"growth in accuracy" can logically be sustained here.
Indeed, far from denying the receipt of information from an "informant" or
"informants", the Qur'an throws out a challenge declaring that neither the
Prophet nor his people previously knew the facts that were being revealed to
him. Thus 11:49 says: .... I..L. J_,j ,y .;..L. j ':1 J ...:,..;! 4---J...; ..:-.S L. .!.l.,Ji 4-.>- j ..,_.;Ji ~ t . , . ; l ,y .;.U;
"That is of the tidings of the unseen, that We reveal to thee: thou didst not know them, neither
thou nor thy people, before this ... " (11 :49)
3
1
Gen. 18:1-8.
2
Gen. 19:3
3
The translation is that of A.J. Arberry, op.til., 217, with slight modification.
This '4Jah together with some others to the same effect are some of the
strongest Qur'anic evidences showing that the Prophet had no previous
knowledge of what was being revealed to him. Hence, as in the case of the
Qur'anic evidence in support of the Prophet's "illiteracy"\ so in this instance too
Watt has misinterpreted this '4Jah in order to sustain his assumption. Thus,
proceeding on the basis of his assumption that the Qur'an shows the Prophet's
receipt of information from some one, Watt states that this '4Jah 11:49 poses an
"embarrassment" to those "who want to uphold the sincerity of Muhammad" and
then attempts to explain away this supposed embarrassment by having recourse
to his peculiar notion about revelation (waf?y). He says that the facts and
information about the prophetic stories came from human sources, but the
"teaching" and "ulterior significance of the stories came to Muhammad by
revelation".
2
But having said this Watt seems to recall his general thesis that even
in respect of ideas and concepts the Prophet borrowed them from
Judaeo-Christian sources. Hence Watt hastens to add that since "Judaeo-Christian
ideas had become acclimatized in the Hijaz", the ideas that the Qur'an
presupposed did not require to be specially communicated", but that the "precise
form" in which they were to be "integrated so as to be relevant to the
contemporary situation, could have been given them only by the prophetic
intuition. "
3
It must at once be pointed out that the assumption of the Prophet's having
received information from any human source is totally groundless and wrong.
Also it is true that the Prophet and his people did not know the facts that were
being given through the revelation. Hence the '4Jah quoted above does in no way
pose an embarrassment; nor is there any need for explaining away that supposed
embarrassment by reducing the meaning and scope of revelation to merely "the
precise form" in which the stories or the ideas were to be "integrated" so as to
make them relevant to the contemporary situation.
That the Prophet was receiving the facts (as well as the text) through the
revelation is clear from the Qur'anic passages themselves. The key word in the
passage quoted above (11 :49) is 'anbli' ( ~ 4 i ~ . Watt himself translates this word as
"stories". Nonetheless he suggests that their "teaching" and "significance" only
should be understood. This suggestion is made just for the sake of fitting his
1
Supra, pp. 15-20.
2
Watt, M. atM., 160.
' Ibid., 160-161.
assumption in this 'qyah . The plain Arabic equivalent of 'anba' is 'akhbar
and both mean "facts" or "accounts"; and A.J. Arberry's rendering of the
expression as "tidings" comes nearer to conveying the correct meaning. Indeed
'anbd, when it emanates from Allah,
1
means "facts" and "true accounts" without
the slightest doubt or untruth about them. But even if Watt's translation of the
word as "stories" is allowed, there is nothing here or elsewhere in the Qur'an to
sustain the claim that it means merely "teaching" and "significance" to the
exclusion of the facts. It may be noted that besides the various derivatives from
the root, the word naba' ) in its singular form occurs in the Qur'an at some
seventeen places,
2
while the plural form 'anbd' in some 12 places.
3
At each of
these 29 places it signifies facts and circumstances. It is not necessary to look into
all these places. It would suffice if we look at only the two other places, besides
11:49 where it has been used with the same emphatic assertion that the Prophet
had no prior knowledge of what was coming to him as revelation. One of these
places is 3:44 which runs as follows:
.) .)\ t+'..u ..::. 1,.. ) t/-f t+'f .) .)\ t+'..u ..::. 1,.. ) ..!J,)\ "-::>- j .._,.. ..!.l).)
"That is of the tidings of the unseen , that We reveal to thee; for thou wast not with them,
when they were casting quills which of them should have charge of Mary; thou wast not with them
when they were disputing. "
4
And the other 'qyah, 12:102, runs as follows:
.) ('-"' ) ('-"' _,..f l_,.....,..f .)\ t+'..u ..::. 1,.. ) ..!J,)\ "-::>- j .._,.. ..!.l).)
"That is of the tidings of the unseen that We reveal to thee: thou wast not with them when they
agreed upon their plan, devising."
5
It is noteworthy that the last part of each of these two 'qyahs beginning from
"thou wast not with them" is an explanation of the 'anbd' given to the Prophet
and it refers to specific facts and circumstances, not to mere "meaning" and
"significance" of some facts.
The same emphasis on the Prophet's innocence and lack of prior knowledge of
the facts that were being revealed to him is reiterated (though without the specific
expression 'anbd} in another highly expressive Qur'anic passage, 28:44-46, which
runs as follows:
JJ\k.a 1.; J} .:fJ J .._,.. ..::. \... J _,..';1 l5'"" y Ji 1.:.,..;:.i .ll (,f-_;JI ..::. \... J
.:fJ .ll J#l ..::. \... J _,.. \.:5' .:fJ J 1_,1.:; ..:r-..v J.o>f J 4JG ..::. \... J __,...,JI
1
Watt of course does not admit that the revelation received by the Prophet was from Allah .
2
Q. 5:27; 6:34; 6:67; 7:175; 9:70; 10:71; 14:9; 18:3; 26:69; 27:22; 28:3; 28:21; 38:67; 38:88; 49:6; 64:5 and 78:2.
' Q. 3:44; 6:5; 7:101; 11:49; 11:100; 11:120; 12:102; 20:99; 26:6; 28:66; 33:20 and 44:4.
4
A.J. ARBERRY, op.cit., 51.
' Ibid., 237.
0J.J'.i:: r-..w .!.ll,.i ,y _ ~ - . . i ; ,y ("""'Lil \.. \..j J..i.:::J ~ J ,y 6.....>-J
"Thou wast not upon the western side when We decreed to Moses the commandment, nor
wast thou of those witnessing; but We raised up generations, and long their lives continued.
Neither wast thou a dweller among the Midianites, reciting to them Our signs; but We were
sending Messengers. Thou wast not upon the side of the Mount when We called; but for a mercy
from thy Lord, that thou mayest warn a people to whom no warner came before thee, and that
haply they may remember." (28:44-46).
1
All these Qur'anic passages (11:49; 3:44, 12:102 and 24:44-46) are unequivocal
confirmations of the Prophet's innocence and lack of prior knowledge of the
facts and circumstances he was giving out by means of the revelation to him.
They also constitute irrefutable contradictions of the assumption that he received
facts and ideas from human sources and then had had recourse to "revelation" in
order to obtain only "the precise form" in which they were to be integrated so as
to make them relevant to the contemporary situation. Also, these passages are, as
already pointed out, in the nature of challenges to the Prophet's contemporary
adversaries who similarly insinuated that he received information from some
human beings. It should be noted that every part of the Qur'an was given out to
the public the moment it was revealed. In fact the various allegations of the
unbelievers and their rebuttal as they occur in the Qur'an are themselves
unmistakable proofs of instant publication of the texts of the revelations. And
keeping in view the dates of revelation of the above mentioned passages, which
vary from early Makkan to mid-Madinan periods (and Watt himself classifies the
first mentioned passage, 11:49, as C-E+, i.e., early Makkan to mid-Madinan
period), it is evident that the challenge was repeated not only at Makka but also at
Madina where there were a number of well-informed Jews who were against the
Prophet. Yet, there is no indication in the sources of their having taken up the
challenge in any way, nor of their having pointed out any individual or any other
source from which MuQ.ammad (p.b.h.) could have obtained the information.
Nor, as already pointed out, could the unbelieving Quraysh leaders, in spite of
their ceaseless efforts and inhuman torturing of the few Christian converts at
Makka, elicit an admission from them that they had taught the Prophet anything.
VI. DIFFERENCES IN THE QUR'ANIC AND BIBLICAL ACCOUNTS
That the above mentioned passages relate to facts and also prove that the
Prophet did not receive the facts from any person conversant with the Bible is
further evident from the factual differences that are noticeable in the Qur'anic
I Ibid., 396-397.
and Biblical accounts of the same Prophets. The first mentioned passage, 11:49,
occurs in the context of the account of Nul;l. Unlike the Old-Testament, it is the
Qur' an which specifically mentions that he preached monotheism and called his
people to the worship of Only One God. Again, unlike the Old-Testament, it tells
that the deluge did not come except after Nul;l had faced all sorts of opposition
and troubles in the cause of his mission and except after he had become
despaired of his people ever receiving guidance, and also except after God had
revealed to him that they would not believe. Thirdly, it is the Qur'an which
mentions that only those who believed in God were saved. The Qur'an also refers
to what happened to Nul;l's son for his refusal to accept the truth and how he was
drowned. Fourthly, the Old-Testament says that God became repentant (?) for
His having caused the devastation and resolved never again to do so and, in order
to remind Him of His resolution and "covenant" with Nul;l, set a bow (rainbow)
in the sky, thus implying also the weakness of forgetfulness on His part.
1
It is
more with reference to such facts as are not mentioned in the Old-Testament but
are stated clearly in the Qur'an that it challengingly tells the Prophet that neither
he nor his people previously knew them.
Similarly the second passage, 3:44, comes in the context of the story of
Maryam and 'Isa (Mary and Jesus). The differences between their story in the
Qur'an and that in the New Testament are more remarkable. The passage itself
refers to the incident of her care and protection which information is wanting in
the New Testament. Second, the Qur'an clears her of all imputations of being an
unworthy character and emphatically declares her purity and chastity and states
that Allah selected her as the noblest lady for the extraordinary honour of being
mother of isa- "0 Maryam, Allah has chosen thee and purified thee, chosen
thee above the women of all the nations. "
2
At the same time it makes it very clear
that she was no more than a human being and that she was as much in need of
praying to Allah as anyone else - "0 Maryam, worship thy Lord devoutly,
prostrate thyself and bow down (in prayer) with those who bow down. "
3
As
regards 'Isa, the Qur'an mentions even such of his miracles as are not related in
the New Testament. For instance, his speaking to the people while he was in the
cradle,
4
his giving life to clay birds by Allah's permission,
5
and the table that
1
Gen. 8:21 and 9:11-16.
2
Q. 3:42. The text runs as: ~ W I ,w Js- !lW....I; !l ~ ; !lW....I ..!JI 01 t'/ 4 >.S:l':>W1 .,.Ju ;1 ;
1
Q. 3:43. The text runs as: .:r.1)1 e:: ...->h <.>....._1; ~ ) <f"l t<f" 4
4
Q. 3:46.
; Q. 3:49; 5:113.
descended unto him from the heaven are mentioned only in the Qur'an. Besides
these, so far as the conceptual aspects are concerned, the Qur'an categorically
A J
says that 'Isa was no more than a Prophet, that he was not god, nor a "son of
God" ,Z nor one of the Trinity,
3
nor was he crucified.
4
The third of the passages, 12:102, comes at the end of the story of Yusuf
which the Qur'an designates as "the most beautiful of stories" ('ahsan al-qasas).
This story is told in the Qur'an throughout in a note of spirituality which is
lacking in the Old Testament. The distinctions between the treatments of the
story in the two may be best illustrated by placing some of the salient facts in
both in juxtaposition as follows:
The Qur'an
(1) The Qur'an says that Ya'qub's special
love for Yusuf was due to his dream and
notion of a great future for his son (12:4-6).
(2) The Qur'an says that Yusufs brothers
conspired against him before taking him out
with them. (12:9-10).
(3) The Qur'an states that it was Yusufs
brothers who asked their father to let Yusuf
go with them (12:11-14).
(4) The Qur'an shows that Yusuf did not
divulge his dream to his brothers (12:5).
(5) The Qur'an says that Yusufs brothers
threw him into a pit wherefrom a passing
caravan picked him up and subsequently
sold him as a slave in Egypt (12:15,19).
(6) The Qur'an says that Ya'qub did not
believe the story given out by his sons nor
did he despair of getting him back someday
(12:16-18).
7) The Qur'an states that it was 'Aziz's
wife who attempted to seduce Yusuf and
shut the door of her room whereupon
Yusuf ran away from her. She snatched her
shirt from behind which was tom as Yusuf
rushed towards the door (12: 23-25).
I Q. 5:19; 5:119.
The Old Testament
(1) The Old Testament says that Ya'qub's
love for Yusuf was due to his being the son
of an old age (Gen. 37:3).
(2) No mention of it in the Old
Testament.
(3) The Old Testament, on the other
hand, makes Ya'qub ask Yusuf to go out
with his brothers (Gen. 37: 13-14).
(4) The Old Testament says that Yusuf
told about his dreams to his brothers (Gen.
37: 5,9).
(5) The Old Testament says that Yusufs
brothers first threw him into a pit and then
took him out and sold him to a passing
company of merchants (Gen. 23-28).
(6) The Old Testament says that Ya'qub
readily believed his sons' false story , became
despaired of getting Yusuf back . and
mourned his loss for a long time (Gen.
333-34).
(7) The Old Testament syas that 'Aziz's
wife shouted and called for help whereupon
Yusuf left his clothes in her hands and fled
(Gen. 39:12).
2
Q. 4:171; 6:101; 10:68; 17:111; 18:4-5; 19:35; 19:88-89; 19:91-92; 21:26; 23:91; 25:2; 37:152; 39:4; 43:81; 72:3 and 112:3.
3
Q. 4:171; 5:76.
4
Q. 4:157.
(8) The Qur'an says that when in the course
of Yusufs running away he and 'Aziz's wife
were at the door, her husband unexpectedly
arrived there. She then hastened to allege
that Yusuf had attempted to violate her
honour and without wru.t:lng for her
husband's opinion demanded that Yusuf be
put in prison or be appropriately punished
(12:25).
(9) The Qur'an says that Yusuf defended
himself then and there at the door telling the
truth that it was she who had attempted to
seduce her (12:26).
(10) The Qur'an further says that a
witness of the household pointed out that if
Yusufs shirt was tom in the front he was to
blame; but if it was tom in the backside he
was guilty (12:26-27).
(11) As the shirt was tom in the backside
'Aziz realized the truth of Yusufs statement,
asked him to pass it over in silence and also
asked her to seek Allah's forgiveness for her
sinful act (12:28-29)
(12) Information about the affair
nonetheless leaked out and the ladies of the
town started whispering among themselves
about the deed of' Aziz's wife who invited the
ladies to a banquet where at the end of the
dinner she gave each lady a knife and asked
them to cut the fruits laid before them. At
the same time she asked Yusuf to come out
before them. They were so bewitched by the
beauty and countenance of Yusuf that each
of them cut her hand with the knife instead
of cutting the fruit each was holding.
Exultantly 'Aziz's wife confessed before
them her deed and insisted that if Yusuf did
not accede to her solicitation he would surely
be put in prison and humbled (12:29-32).
(8) The Old Testament syas that 'Aziz
came back home afterwards when his wife
informed him of Yusufs alleged offence,
saying that as she cried out for help Yusuf
left his clothes to her and fled (Gen.
39:14-18).
Testament.
Testament.
(11) The Old Testament says that 'Aziz's
anger shot up as soon as heard his wife's
complaint and instantly put Yusuf into
prison. (Gen. 39:19-20)
(12) No mention of the incident in the
Old Testament.
THE ALLEGED BORROWING FROM JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANI1Y
(13) Yusuf himself preferred going to
prison in view of the persistence of 'Aziz's
wife in her design. 'Aziz also preferred
putting Yusuf in prison in order to avoid a
scandal (12:33-35).
(14) The Qur'an says that when the King
of Egypt sent his messenger to the prison
conveying his decision to release Yusuf from
imprisonment and to appoint him to a high
post, he did not jump at the offer but
demanded that the affair which had brought
him into prison be first investigated and his
innocence publicly vindicated (12:50).
(15) The public hearing was duly held
and Yusuf's innocence vindicated by the
confession of 'Aziz's wife of her guilt as well
as by the testimony of the ladies who had cut
their hands in the banquet and before whom
also 'Aziz's wife confessed her guilt (12:51-52
&12:32).
(16) The Qur'an ends the story by
narrating how Yusuf was finally united with
his father and brothers and refers to the
whole outcome as a realization of his dream
(12:100).
(17) The Qur'an correctly describes that
Yusuf's brothers used "beasts of burden "
(ba'tr), not camel (Jamal/ i b i ~ to carry their
merchandise to Egypt. Camel had not yet
been domesticated in Yusuf's time.
(18) Finally, the Qur'an rightly describes
the Egyptian ruler in this story as "King", not
as "Pharaoh", which came to be used as the
designation of the Egyptian sovereign much
later in the reign of Amenhotep IV, i. e,
during the second quarter of the 14th
century B.C.
Testament.
(14) The Old Testament does not refer to
Yusuf's demand for public vindication of his
innocence and says that he instantly accepted
the king's offer.
(15) No mention of these facts in the Old
Testament.
(16) No reference is made in the old
Testament to the final realization of Yusuf's
dream.
hand, describes them as camels not oO:ly at
the time of Yusuf but also at the time of
Ishaq, the grandfather ofYusuf.
hand, throughout terms the Egyptian ruler as
"Pharaoh" not only in the story of Yusuf but
also with regard to events occurring much
earlier during the time of Ibrahim.
57
58 TIIE QUR'AN AND THE ORIENTALISTS
These are some of the factual differences in the Qur'anic and Old-Testament
accounts of the story of Ylisuf. A detailed comparison would reveal more such
differences.
Similarly the fourth passage, 28:44-46, comes at the end of a narration of some
of the facts relating to Mlisa (Moses, 28:2-43). Incidentally, this account of the fact
starts with the statement: "We recite unto thee some of the naba' (story, account)
relating to Mlisa." The Qur'an indeed tells the story of Mlisa and his brother
Harlin, as also that of the Israelites in far greater detail than what occurs in the
Old-Testament. There are of course some similarities between the two accounts;
but the differences and the new elements in the Qur'an are fundamental
1
(1) The
most important distinction is that the Old-Testament, though it represents Mlisa
as the "Law-giver", nonetheless accuses him and also Harlin of several
improprieties and ultimately depicts them as persons who had betrayed God and
incurred His wrath.
2
It is even alleged that Harlin was instrumental in introducing
the worship of the golden calf. The Qur'an, on the other hand, clears them of
such accusations and emphatically asserts that they were Allah's chosen Prophets,
were recipients of His favours, revelation and scripture, were free from the
irregularities ascribed to them and were men who sincerely and devoutly
discharged their duties as Allah's Prophets by calling their people to the worship
of the One Only God.
3
(2) It also specifically mentions that it was the Israelite
Samiri, not Harlin, who was responsible for introducing the worship of the calf.
4
(3) It is also in the Qur'an alone that the story of Mlisa's travel to the "meeting
place of the two seas" is given.
5
(5) Again, it is only in the Qur'an that the
significant incident of the Pharaoh's plan to kill Mlisa is revealed and it is further
stated that a "believer" at Pharaoh's court dissuaded him from carrying out his
plan.
6
Even with regard to details, as the writer in the Shorter Enryclopedia of Islam
points out, there are a number of differences. Thus (6), in the Qur'an it is the
Pharaoh's wife, not his daughter, who rescues the infant Mlisa from the river; (7)
1
See for a summary of the similarities the Shorter Emyclopaedia ofl.rlam, 1974 reprint, pp. 414-415.
2
Deuteronomy 32:48-52.
' See for instance Q. 2:52-72; 7:144-145; 19:51-53,57-73; 20:39-50; 21:48; 33:69; 37:114-122; 53:38 and 87:19.
4
Q. 20:85-86; 20:95-97.
5
Q. 18:60-62. The writer in the Shorter Enryclopaedia oflJ/am (p. 415) rightly says: "The story of Musa's accompanying a
wise man on a journey seems without parallel.)
6
Q. 40:26-45. The writer in the Shorter Enryclopaedia ofirlam, thinking that some aspects of the story of Musa originated in
Haggada, writes, "The Kur'anic story of a believer at the court of Pharaoh who wants to save Mus a is not clear." Yes; the
comparison which the writer suggests, of course with a question mark, with the story of Jethro in Haggada is really not
clear. The Qur'anic account is quite distinctive, without any parallel in Haggada.
THE ALLEGED BORROWING FROM JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY
59
instead of the seven shepherdesses in the Bible, it is only two in the Qur'an
whom Musa assists; (8) and instead of ten plagues the Qur'an speaks of nine
miracles; (9) also Musa strikes twelve springs out of the rock, one for each tribe;
(1 0) he repents after having slain the Egyptian and (11) he sees the burning bush
at night and desires to take a brand from its fire. (12) The Qur'an also mentions
that the Pharaoh's magicians died for their belief in God.
1
(13) Also its
description of the capabilities of the Pharaoh's magicians is different from that of
the Bible. The latter ascribes supernatural powers to them but the Qur'an treats
them as mere conjurers. (14) The Bible gives a rather exaggerated figure of the
Hebrew population at the time of the Exodus saying that there were 600,000
men, with women and children in addition (Exodus 12:37). "Consequently, in this
case", observes Maurice Bucaille, "the entire population would have
approximately amounted to two and a half million or more, according to certain
Jewish commentators. Such a hypothesis is quite untenable."
2
The Qur'an, on the
other hand, does not give any such figures about the Hebrew population of the
time.(15) While the Bible informs us that the Pharaoh was afraid of the increasing
Hebrew population and hence ordered the killing of their newly born male babes,
the Qur'an informs us that he was not worried about any such demographic
problem and boastfully said: "These indeed are a band of small numbers" (26:54).
Still more significant (16) is the mention of Haman in the Qur'an as an
intimate of the Pharaoh (28:6,8, 38; 29:39; 40:24, 36). Haman is not mentioned in
the Bible and scholars have hitherto been guessing about his identity and the
correctness of his association with the Pharaoh. It has been suggested that he is
to be identified with the ancient Egyptian god "Amun" or that he might be
"Aman", a counsellor of Assueus (Xerexes) who was an enemy of the Jews. But it
has now been discovered that Haman in the Qur'an is an exact transliteration of a
Hieroglyphic name of a person who was "chief of the workers in stone-quarries"
at the time of the Pharaoh and that this description of him fits in with what is
spoken of him in the Qur'an. The name Haman has also been found engraved on
a stela kept at the Hof-Museum of Vienna, Austria. Hieroglyphs had been totally
forgotten at the time of the Qur'anic revelation and its discipherment took place
only in the 19th century. "Since matters stood like that in ancient times", writes
the discoverer of this fact, Maurice Bucaille, "the existence of the word 'Haman'
in the Qur'an suggests a special reflection."
3
1
Shorter Emyclopaedia of/slam, op.cit, 414-415.
2
Maurice Bucaille, op.cit., p. 197.
But the most astounding fact is that (17) the Qur'an, while mentioning that the
Pharaoh and his hosts were drowned and destroyed, also says that the body of the
Pharaoh was saved: "So today We rescue your body that you be for those who
come after you a sign! And many of men are about Our signs indeed heedless!"
(.:J_,lii.Al ,y ...... wl ..,.. l_r.)' .:,1J .:r.J i.r.l\.j - 10:92). The Bible
simply says that the Pharaoh was drowned; and early in the 7th century when the
above mentioned statement of the Qur'an was revealed none could have any idea
that the body of the Pharaoh had been saved. Modern Egyptology has established
the fact that the Pharaoh of the Exodus was Merenptah, successor of Ramesses
II. In 1898 the French Egyptologist V. Loret discovered the mummy of
Merenptah and his name was found written under the first layer of the wrappings.
Medical investigations carried out by Maurice Bucaille on the mummy of
Merenptah confirm the Qur'anic account of his death. "There was no human
knowledge, as well, at this time, about the two other Qur'anic teachings which are
not found in the Bible: the name of an intimate person belonging to the close
circle of Pharaoh, 'Haman', and the announcement of what happened to the dead
body of Pharaoh. What we read in the Qur'an about them is in close conformity
with modern data in the field of Egyptology ....... Now, it is up to the exegetes of
the Qur'an and the Bible to direct their objective attention to these facts and this
reality and draw conclusions."
2
Similarly with regard to the other Prophets the accounts in the Qur'an differ
fundamentally from those in the Bible. Some of the differences in the story of
Ibrahim have been mentioned above. So far as Da'ud and Sulayman (Solomon),
the two other great Prophets are concerned, the Bible in fact depicts them as
tyrants, committing the most heinous crimes, indulging in pleasures and
licentiousness and even abducting others' wives for illicit enjoyment!
3
Prophet Lut
is even made to commit incest with his own daughters.
4
The Qur'an, on the
hand, is singularly free from imputing such frivolities to any of the Prophets. And
so far as Da'ud is concerned, he is represented as Allah's ideal servant on whom
He bestowed kingdom, wisdom, scripture and power
5
Similarly Sulayman was
favoured with rare knowledge of the languages of birds and animals, in addition
to power and kingdom.
6
Both were noble characters and Allah's Prophets.
1
Maurice Bucaille, op. cit., p. 193.
2
Ibid., pp. 216-217, 219.
' For Da'ud see Samuel II, 3:12-16; 4:4-5; 16:23; 18:33; and for Solomon see Kings I, 2:13-25; 28:35; 11:1-13.
4
Gen. 19:31-36 .
. I Q. 2:102; 4:163; 6:84; 21:78-82; 27:15-44; 34:12-14; 38:30-40.
Thus a comparison between the Biblical and Qur'anic accounts of the Prophets
makes it clear that the latter are not a reproduction of the former. There are of
course points of similarity between the two sets of accounts; but the Qur'an
definitely presents a good deal different and original. Some of the orientalists do
recognize that there are new elements in the Qur'an. In general, however, their
treatment of the subject suffers from three common drawbacks. In the first place,
they seem to emphasize only the points of similarity almost to the exclusion of
the points of dissimilarity or make only casual and secondary reference to them.
Second, they spare no pains to identify similar facts or ideas in other ancient
Greek, Hebrew and Latin works or legends and then immediately advance the
suggestion that the Qur'anic accounts are drawn from or based on them. It is
overlooked that the mere existence of similar facts or ideas in previous works,
sometimes thousand of years old, does not ipso facto prove that a subsequent work
is based on that work. Some further evidence is needed to show the contact or
possibility of contact with, or understanding of, that source. This point is
especially relevant in the case of Mu);lammad, peace and blessings of Allah be on
him; for it does not carry conviction just to suggest that he mastered the materials
treasured in numerous ancient works and sources, and that also in a multiplicity
of foreign and even defunct languages, by means only of casual conversations
with a trader in transit or a foreign slave in domestic service. For, that is the most
that has hitherto been alleged about him. Nor is there any indication that Makka
and its vicinity at that time possessed a good library or museum containing the
ancient works and manuscripts to which the orientalists call their readers'
attention; or that there were scholars and philologists in that place to unravel the
secrets of such works to the prophet-to-be. Third, while casually recognizing that
there are new elements in the Qur'an, the orientalists seem never to have paid
attention to find out the sources of these elements. If they had done so, they
would surely have found reason to see that the assumptions under which they
have hitherto been labouring so diligendy and impressively need revision.
I Q. 27:15-30.
CHAPTER III
THE ALLEGED CONTEMPORARY ERRORS IN THE QUR'AN AS
EVIDENCE OF THE PROPHET'S AUTHORSHIP
The discrepancies and differences between the statements in the Qur'an on
the one hand and those in the Bible on the other in respect of the prophetic
stories and other matters clearly militate against the theory of Mul:,lammad's
(p.b.h.) having allegedly drawn on and reproduced the Biblical materials. To
sustain the theory, therefore, the orientalists have recourse to a two-fold plea,
namely, that Mubammad (p.b.h.) did not himself read the Bible but derived his
information about Judaism and Christianity from what he heard from others and
that since his knowledge was thus only secondary, certain mistaken notions about
these two systems prevailing at the time in certain quarters have crept into the
Qur'an. And as an extension of this latter plea it has lately been suggested, mainly
by Watt, that not only some mistaken notions about these two systems but also
the prevailing mistaken notions about the world and the universe have been
reproduced in the Qur'an.
The utter untenability of the original assumption that Mul:,lammad (p.b.h.) and
for that matter any reasonable person, would have proceeded to challenge the
correctness of the two established religious systems on the basis of mere hear-say
knowledge or that he would have ventured to formulate and promulgate a new
religion on the authority of what his alleged private "informants" or "tutors"
prompted to him, has been shown in the previous chapter. The present chapter
deals with the remaining aspect of the orientalists' pleas, namely, the supposed
mistakes about Judaism and Christianity and the so-called scientific errors in the
Q
)A
uran.
I. THE SUPPOSED MISTAKES ABOUT JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY
In dealing with this topic two things need to be borne in mind. In the first
place, the Qur'an does not really treat Judaism and Christianity as independent
religions but as deviations from and corruption of the message delivered by
Allah's prophets. Hence there was no question of its stating what the modern
Jews and Christians think to be the correct articles of their faiths. The Qur'an is
set to pointing out that what the Jews and the Christians believed and practised at
the time were errors and that their scriptures had been altered and manipulated to
accommodate those errors and incorrect beliefs. It also vigorously attempts to
THE ALLEGED CONTEMPORARY ERRORS IN THE QUR'AN 63
correct and rectify those errors. Secondly, it should also be borne in mind that
what the modern Jews and Christians believe to be the correct doctrines of their
faiths are not the same as those believed and practised by their predecessor Jews
and Christians of the sixth and the seventh Christian century. Hence it is basically
a wrong approach to say that the Qur'an's description of certain of the beliefs and
practices of Judaism and Christianity are "palpably" false. For, it is well-known
that a number of "reforms" and modifications have been made in these faiths,
particularly in Christianity, since the advent of Islam. The point would be clearer
if it is noted that some serious Christian thinkers have lately advocated the
abandonment of such doctrines as incarnation and divinity of Jesus ('Is a)
1
, the
concept of the "Holy Ghost" as part of the Trinity,
2
etc. If any of these suggested
reformulating of the doctrines of Christianity takes place, a future Christian
scholar would as easily be able to say that the statement that "Christ is God
incarnate" is a "palpably" false notion about Christianity!
That exactly is what Muir and the others have done. Thus, while unjustly
accusing the Qur'an of having reproduced what they consider mistakes and errors
about Judaism and Christianity, they have not been able to avoid recognizing the
fact that the alleged notions were those held by the contemporary followers of
those faiths. Muir, for instance, places the blame squarely upon the "Catholics"
and the Syrian Christians of the time; while Watt follows a cautious course and
transfers the blame upon those whom he calls in his earlier work "nominally
Christian Arabs".
3
In his latest work he further modifies the innuendo saying:
"some people in Mecca wrongly supposed certain beliefs to be held by Jews and
Christians" and that "these were beliefs held by the Meccans."
4
It must at once
be noted that the beliefs and practices alluded to were not the suppositions of
"some people in Mecca", nor were the beliefs held by "the Meccans" as such, but
by the Makkan, Arab and Syrian Christians in general and that in pointing out
those aspects of their beliefs the Qur'an was not describing the tenets of Judaism
and Christianity but was pointing out how the followers of those faiths had
deviated from the original teachings of the Prophets
As regards the specific instances of the alleged mistakes it is said that the
Qur'an suggests that the Trinity "consists of Father, Son and Virgin Mary",
5
that
1
See for instanecJ. HICKS (ed.) The Jl1yth of God Incarnate, London, 1977.
2
The protagonists of the Salvation Army advocate this.
' WAIT,M. atM., 28.
4
WAIT, M11hammad'.r Mecca, 2, 44, 55.
' WAIT, M. atM., 28.
it asserts that the Jews regarded Ezra ('Uzayr) as son of God and that it denies
that Jesus was crucified.
(a) Regarding the Trinity
It is to be noted that the Qur'an does nowhere state that the Trinity consists of
"Father", "Son" and "Virgin Mary". Indeed it was none of the Qur'an's business
to identify the entities or "Persons" that constituted the Trinity. It simply
denounces the concept as antithetical to and subversive of true monotheism. It is
the orientalists', more particularly Watt's own supposition that the Qur'anic
passage which refers to the Christians' worship of Maryam and 'Isa, besides Allah,
"suggests that the Trinity consists", etc. In fact Watt modifies his statement in his
latest work where he refers to the Qur'anic statement somewhat more accurately,
saying that it gives the idea that "Christians took Jesus and Mary to be 'two gods
apart from God"'.
1
The passage (5:116) in question runs as follows:
J 0 L. Jt; ....UI 0 .y if( ) .) ).WI ._,.WJ ...:,...1; ..;...i( tf-/ .y.l ....UI Jt; J
.... J crol L. J;l 0f
"And when Allah will say: 0 'Isa, son of Maryam, did you say to men: Take me and my
mother for two gods besides Allah? He will say: Glory be to you; it was not for me to say what I
had no right to say ..... " (5:116)
2
Here the Qur'an simply disapproves the worship of 'Isa and Maryam, besides
Allah, and also exonerates 'Isa from having so advised his followers. There is no
allusion to the doctrine of the Trinity here. Significantly enough, where the
Qur'an alludes to the concept of the Trinity, as in 4:171 and 5:73, it does not
identify the entities that are supposed to constitute the Trinity. In fact the Qur'an
treats the two subjects, the Trinity and the worship of human beings as gods or
lords, as two distinct themes. This is very clear from 9:31 which disapproves the
Christians' and the Jews' taking their monks and ascetics as "lords" apart from
Allah. The passage runs as follows:
y. ')I .JI ") l...l>IJ 4)1 ')I IJ/( L. J tf-/ .y.l e--l\J ....UI 0 .y 44) J J t"' IJ.b:JI
.0'_r.;
"They take their priests and anchorites as lords apart from Allah, and (also) the Messiah, son
of Maryam. Yet they were not commanded but to worship One God. There is no god but He.
Exalted is He from what they associate (with Him)." (9:31)
This passage is analogous to 5:116. Here again the worship of any other
beings besides Allah is condemned. There is a tradition which explains how the
1
WAIT, Muhammad'.< Me<"ca, 2, 45.
2
Mulpmmad 'Ali's translation with slight modification.
Christians and the Jews treated their priests and monks as lords.
1
But apart from
that question, no one would say on the basis of this passage (9:31) that the
Qur'an conceives of the Trinity to have been composed of the priests and monks
as one element, 'Isa as another and Allah as the third!
That 'Isa is taken for god by the Christians is an admitted fact. As regards the
question of the worship of Maryam, it is a proven fact that not only the Christians
of Arabia, but also many of them in the East and the West, particularly the
Catholics, did and still do worship or adore her as possessing divine dignity. Watt
ignores this fact presumably because it does not form part of the Protestant
dogma. The point is ably explained by Mu}:lammad 'Ali who, in his note to the
'qyah in question writes as follows:
"From the description of Mary being taken for god by the Christians, some Christian critics of
the Qur'an conclude that the doctrine of the Trinity according to the Qur'an consists of three
persons - God, Jesus and Mary. But this is an absolutely unwarranted conclusion. Mary is no
doubt spoken of as being taken for an object of worship by the Christians; but the doctrine of the
Trinity is not mentioned here, while the divinity of Mary is not mentioned where the Trinity is
spoken of. The doctrine and practice of Mariolatry, as it is called by Protestant controversialists, is
too well known. In the catechism of the Roman Church the following doctrines are to be found:
'That she is truly the mother of God, and the second Eve, by whose means we have received
blessing and life; that she is the mother of Pity and very specially our advocate; that her images are
of the utmost utility.' (Ency. Br., 11th ed. vol. 17, p. 813). It is also stated that her intercessions are
directly appealed to in the Litany. And further, that there were certain women in Thrace, Scythia,
and Arabia who were in the habit of worshipping the virgin as the goddess, the offer of a cake
being one of the features of their worship. 'From the time of the council of Ephesus (held in 431)',
says the same writer, 'to exhibit figures of the virgin and child became the approved expression of
orthodoxy .... Of the growth of the Marian cults, alike in the east and in the west, after the decision
at Ephesus it would be impossible to trace the history .... Justinian in one of his laws bespeaks her
advocacy for the Empire, and he inscribes the high altar in the new church of St. Sophia with her
name. Narses looks to her directions on the field of battle. The Emperor Heracleus bears her
image on his banner. John of Damascus speaks of her as the Sovereign lady to whom the whole
creation has been made subject by her son. Peter Damain recognizes her as the most exalted of all
creatures and apostrophizes her as deified and endowed with all power in heaven and in earth, yet
not forgetful of our race.' The Christian world had in fact felt 'the need for a mediator to deal with
the very mediator', and thus Mary was raised to the throne of Divinity along with Jesus. The
recent proclamation of the Pope relating to the bodily assumption of Mary supports this
conclusion, and will raise a new question for the Christian world whether Trinity really consists of
God, Jesus and Mary.''
2
1
See for instance AL-TABARi, Tajrfr, XIV,209,211; IBN KATHiR, Tafsfr, IV,77 and Tirmidhf (ed. AHMAD MuHAMMAD
SHAKIR), V, 278 (hadr1h 3095).
2
Mul;IAMMAD 'Au, The Ho!J Qur'dn Arabic Text, Englirh Tran.rlation and Commentary, revised edition, Lahore, 1985, pp.
275-276,note 751.
(b) RegardingVzt!Jr
As regards the Qur'anic statement about the Jews' taking 'Uzayr as son of God
(9:30) Watt castigates it as the "chief error in the Qur'an in respect of Judaism"
and asserts that "while it is true that the Old Testament uses the term 'son of
God' for the Messiah who was expected, there is no evidence that it was ever
applied to Ezra. "
1
Of course there is no evidence in the extant Old Testament about it; but the
Qur'an was not referring to what is written in the Old Testament about 'Uzayr
but to the belief and assertion of some of the Jews of the time who regarded
'Uzayr as the son of God. In fact the 'qyah in question, 9:30, starts with the
expression: "And the Jews say" ..:.Jt; J) The commentator Al-Baycjawi, to
whom Watt refers a number of times in his book/ makes it clear with reference
to this 'qyah that because the Old Testament was given its present form by 'Uzayr,
many of the Jews of the time considered him a "son of God" and that specially at
Madina there was a group of Jews who held that belief. Al-Baycjawi further points
out that the 'qyah in question was read out and recited as usual but no Madinan
Jew came forward with a contradiction
3
It is to be noted that this 'qyah is
unanimously regarded as Madinan. Hence the silence of the Jews of the place on
the matter is suggestive enough, particularly as they were avowed critics of the
Prophet.
Not only Al-Bayqawi but also other commentators mention that the 'qyah
refers to the views of a particular group of the Jews. For instance, Al-Tabari gives
a number of reports together with their chains of narrators specifically
mentioning the leading Jews of Madina who considered 'U zayr a son of God. The
most prominent of those Jews were Sullam ibn Mishkam, Nu'man ibn
Awfa, Sha's ibn Qays and Malik ibn

Similarly Al-Ququbi mentions the
same fact and the same names adding that the expression "the Jews" occurring at
the beginning of the 'qyah means "some particular Jews", just as the expression
"people told them" (qala lahum al-nas) means not all the people of the world but
some particular people. He further says that the Jewish sect who held that 'Uzayr
was God's son had become extinct by his time.
5
1
2
Ibid, 108, note 2 to Chapter 1 and notes 2 and 10 to Chapter III.
' AL-BAYJ?A wi, T aftir, I, second Egyptian impression, 1968, p. 412.
4
AL-TABARi, Tafrir, XIV, 201-204.
' AL-QURTUBi, Tafrir, Pt.VIII, 116-117.
TilE ALLEGED CONTEMPORARY ERRORS IN TilE QUR'AN 67
Thus, in respect of neither Maryam nor 'Uzayr is the Qur'anic statement an
error or mistake. Nor could it be said that the Qur'an was reproducing the
popular and prevailing errors and thus inveighing unjustly against Judaism and
Christianity; for it refers to those beliefs as "errors" and points out the mistake in
adhering to them. Hence if they did not really form part of the pristine religion of
the Jews and the Christians, the Qur'an was only emphasizing the truth.
Nor does the Qur'an stop at pointing out those errors alone. It points out
other errors too. Thus, (a) as against the Jews' insinuations and innuendo against
Maryam it unequivocally asserts her chastity and purity of character. (b) As
against the doctrine of the Trinity it uncompromisingly asserts the absolute and
immutable unity of God. (c) As against the Jews' and Christians' notion of
sonship of God it emphatically states that God does not have any "son" nor is He
"Father" to anyone as such. (d) As against the divinity of Jesus ('Isa) it insists on
his humanity and asserts that those who worship him as god are "unbelievers".
Interestingly enough, none of the orientalists has hitherto ventured to suggest
that these Qur'anic references to the prevailing beliefs of the Jews and Christians
are also "palpable" mistakes in the Qur'an due to its having adopted those
"erroneous" notions from "nominally Christian Arabs", or "some people in
Mecca", or "the Meccans"! The fact is that the Qur'an refers to these latter beliefs
of the Jews and the Christians that prevailed at the time as well as to the other
prevailing beliefs and practices regarding Maryam and 'Uzayr and disapproves of
each and every item of them. The modern followers of the two religions have
abandoned some of the old beliefs and practices and, on the basis of their
reorientation, some of them now come forward with the suggestion that the
Qur'anic references to some of the beliefs and practices of Judaism and
Christianity are palpable mistakes and that therefore Mul]ammad (p.b.h.) did not
himself read the Bible but gathered his information from hearsay. The point at
issue, however, is not whether he himself read the Bible or did not read it. The
issue is that the Qur'an, and therefore Mul]ammad (p.b.h.), denounce as errors
the prevailing beliefs and practices of the Jews and Christians, including even
those that are said to have been sanctioned by their holy scripture. Not only that.
The Qur'an asserts that the extant Judaeo-Christian scripture is a corruption and
modification of the original text.
1
Clearly, the source of Mul).ammad's (p.b.h.)
1
See for a recent western scholar's recognition of this fact, BART D. EHRMAN, The Orthodox Corruption of Jrripture. The
Effect of Early Chri.rtologital Controver.rie.r on the Text of the New Te.rtament, Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford,
1993.
knowledge and conviction must have been something other than either a direct
or an indirect acquaintance with the contents of the Bible.
(c) Regarding Crucifixion
Similarly in its reference to the end of 'Isa's career the Qur'an does in no way
reproduce a popular "mistake". On the contrary, it asserts that the popular saying
(qawluhum) about it is a mistake. The 'qyah (4:157) which refers to the matter runs
as follows:
._,; l_,.o.b:-10!.l.ll 01J ~ y .:f.JJ o_,l.,.:. L.. J p L.. J ....UI J_,.....J t/-f ..:;.1 ~ ~ I U,;; wl ~ _ , . ; J
~ o p L.. J Ji..ll t_ L:;"l )II ~ ,y "-! ~ L.. <l:..o ..!,.l.;. ~
"And as for their saying: We have killed the Messiah, son of Maryam, the Messenger of Allah;
but they killed him not, nor did they crucify him, but it was made to appear to them as such. And
certainly those who differ therein are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge about it except
the pursuit of conjecture; and they killed him not for certain." (4:157)
Clearly, the passage sets out to contradict their sqying, i.e., the saying of the
Jews; for the whole narration here is about the] ews. The contradiction is made in
a very positive manner. It is stated that they did not kill him nor did they really
crucify him. It is further stated that they, while claiming to have killed 'Isa,
entertained doubts about it. The allusion is here to their doubts about the identity
of the individual they put on the cross.
1
The passage then says that it was made
to appear like that to them (shubbiha Jahum), i.e., 'Isa's having been crucified and
killed in that manner was an incorrect impression or illusion to them and that
they had no real knowledge of what actually happened but followed only a certain
conjecture. The passage ends with an emphatic reiteration that "they killed him
not for certain."
It may be noted that even some early Christian sects did not believe that 'Isa
died on the cross. Thus the Basilidans thought that some one else was substituted
for him on the cross. The Gospel of St. Barnabas supports the theory of substitution
on the cross. Another view, that of the Diocetae, says that Jesus ('Is a) had never
a real physical or natural body, but only an apparent or phantom one, and that his
crucifixion was only apparent, not real. A yet another view, that of the Marcionite
Gospel, says that Jesus was not even born but merely appeared in human form.
It cannot be said that in denying 'Isa's crucifixion and death on the cross the
Qur'an adopts the view of any of the above mentioned Christian sects; for it
categorically rejects the very basis of those views, namely, the divinity of 'Isa and
1
See for instance AL-TABARi, Taftir, Pt. VI, 16-17.
the theory of his phantom body. Rather, in view of the doubts and differences
prevailing over the matter, it categorically asserts the truth and positively
contradicts the Jews' assertion that they had killed him. The position is quite
different from that of mere reproduction of a prevailing erroneous view. In fact,
the Qur'anic statement is directed against the Jews as well as the Christians. It
contradicts the former's assertion that they had killed 'Isa and that therefore he
was not a Prophet because he suffered what is called an "accursed death".
Similarly, it rejects the Christian doctrine of the divinity of 'Isa and that of
"vicarious atonement" and its basis, the concept of "blood sacrifice".
The Qur'anic statement that "they killed him not for certain" finds support
even in the Bible itself. Thus:
(1) Jesus had prayed to God the night before his arrest to be saved from the
accursed death on the cross (Mark 14:36; Matt. 26:39; Luke 22:44) and that his
prayer was heard, i.e., responded to. This means that he did not intend to die and
that God did not allow his being subjected to the accursed death.
(2) There is nothing in the Gospels which may be taken to be an eye-witness
account that the person crucified was dead when he was taken down from the
cross or when he was placed in the sepulchre specially made for him.
(3) Pilate, who was in charge of the trial, appears to have grown sceptical
about the justice of the whole proceedings and to have taken care to enable Jesus
to escape death on the cross. The trial took place on Friday. Pilate purposely
prolonged it and delivered judgement only three hours before sun-set, thus
ensuring that Jesus could not be kept on the cross for more than a couple of
hours at the most. For, with the sun-set the Sabbath day would ensue and the
condemned persons would have to be brought down from the crosses. Pilate also
took additional care to see that Jesus was given wine and vinegar mingled with
myrrh to render him less sensitive to pain. Thus Jesus remained on the cross for
not more than three hours (Mark 15:25;John 19:14). This was evidently too short
a time for any person of normal constitution to die on a cross. Significantly
enough, the two other persons who were crucified simultaneously are stated to
have been alive when they were brought down from their crosses. Pilate himself
did not believe that Jesus died in so short a time (Mark 15:44).
( 4) After being taken down from the cross the two other persons' legs were
crushed, but this measure was dispensed with, according to the Bible, in the case
of Jesus Qohn 19:32,33).
(5) Jesus, after being brought down from the cross, was pierced in the side of
his body and blood rushed out of it (John 19:34), which shows that he was still
alive.
(6) Pilate readily granted Joseph of Arimaethia's request and handed over
Jesus' "body" to him. He lavished care on Jesus and put him in a special tomb
hewn in the side of a rock (1\'lark 15:46); which was evidently a manoeuvre to
deceive Jesus' enemies.
(7) On the third day the stone on the tomb's opening was found to have been
removed (1\'lark 16:4), which proves that it had been removed previously,
probably on the first or second day of the internment.
(8) Mary Magdalene, when she looked into the sepulchre, did not find Jesus
there. She saw him standing and at first supposed "him to be the gardener".
Then, "17. Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my
Father, and Your Father; and to my God, and your God. 18. Mary Magdalene
came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken
these things unto her. 19. Then the same day at evening, being the first dqy of the
week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of
the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto
you. 20. And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side.
Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord." (John 20:14-15, 17 -20)
(9) It was in the same body of flesh that the disciples saw Jesus, his wounds
still deep enough for a man to thrust his hand in. (John 20:25-28)
(1 0) He was seen in the same flesh and bone. He still felt hunger and ate food
as his disciples did. "36. And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst
of them and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. 37. But they were terrified and
affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. 38. And he said unto them,
Why are ye troubled? And why do thoughts arise in your hearts? 39. Behold my
hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not
flesh and bones, as ye see me have. 40. And when he had thus spoken, he showed
them his hands and his feet. 41. And while they yet believed not for joy, and
wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? 42. And they gave him a
piece of broiled fish, and of an honey-comb. 43. And he took it, and did eat
before them." (Luke 24:36-43)
(11) Jesus undertook a journey to Galilee where,his disciples saw him.( Matt.
28:10-17)
All these statements in the different Gospels strongly support the Qur'anic
verdict: "they killed him not for certain." Indeed the above mentioned Gospel
statements clearly suggest that Jesus escaped death on the cross and therefore
avoided being discovered by his enemies.
It is worth noting in this connection that recent research confirms that Jesus
did not suffer death on the cross. Thus Barbara Thiering, an Australian scholar,
has demonstrated convincingly, on a meticulous analysis of the Dead Sea Scrolls,
that Jesus did not die on the cross
1
Almost simultaneously, two European
scholars, Holger Kersten and Elmar E. Gruber, have assiduously pursued the
story of the radio-carbon test carried out some years ago on the famous "Turin
Shroud"
2
and have shown that Jesus did not die on the cross.
3
The end of Jesus is
indeed a difficult historical and theological question; and it would not just be
appropriate to cut it short, as Watt does,
4
by calling the Qur'anic statement on it a
popular error picked up from the bazaar gossips of Makka or Bosra.
II. THE ALLEGED SCIENTIFIC ERRORS
As an extension of the plea about errors in respect of Judaism and Christianity
Watt has lately suggested that the Qur'an also reproduces the contemporary
errors about the nature of the earth and the sky. The Qur'an, he says, addresses
its first audience, the Arabs, in terms of their own world-picture and thus
reproduces even points in which that picture was mistaken. In support of this
statement he reproduces, in translation, some eight Qur'anic passages and says
that they show that the prevailing notions of the earth being a flat space and the
sky being a solid structure, "presumably of stone", are reproduced in the Qur'an.
5
Watt recognizes that different words are used in these passages to describe the
earth and says that "all would be interpreted by the hearers in terms of their belief
that the earth is flat." He adds that "there is no special emphasis on flatness, since
no one supposed that the earth would be otherwise. "
6
He also suggests that such
reproduction of contemporary errors was only natural, for, according to him, "it
was not essential for god's purpose that false ideas of this sort should be
1
BARBARA THIERNIG, ]e.rus the Man (first published 1993), Corgi edition, 1993. See especially the back-cover page.
2
The shroud discovered at Turin and believed to be the garment with which Jesus was covered when placed in the
sepulchre.
' HoLGER KERSTEN & ELMAR R. GRUBER, The Je.ru.r Conspiracy The Turin Shroud and the Truth about the Re.rumction, Element
Books Ltd., Shaftesbury, 1994.
4
WATT, Muhammad'.r Mea"tl, 45-46.
' Ibid., 5-6.
6
Ibid., 5.
corrected", "since the Qur'anic message could be communicated to them [the
Arabs] without correcting these beliefs."
1
Before proceeding to take into account the passages cited by Watt in support
of his assumption it is necessary to note the implications of his last mentioned
statement about the supposed compatibility of God's purpose with the
continuance of the prevailing scientific errors in the Qur'an. In making this
statement Watt appears to reflect the modern Christian's attitude to his own
sacred scripture. This attitude is an outcome of a growing awareness since the
nineteenth century of the existence of a number of scientific inaccuracies in the
Biblical texts. In view of these inaccuracies the opinion first gained ground that
there was an antagonism between science and religion. Gradually, however, the
notion of a text of revelation communicated by God gave way to the notion of a
text "inspired" by God but written down by human hands. The Biblical authors, it
came to be assumed, might have introduced inaccuracies to the text arising from
the language of the day or from ideas and traditions still honoured and prevalent
at the time; but that did not detract from their being divinely inspired.
2
"The
scientific errors in the Bible", states an eminent modern Christian thinker, "are
the errors of mankind, for long ago man was like a child, as yet ignorant of
science."
3
The modern Muslim, however, is neither in need of nor prepared for finding
solace in such assumptions; for there is no discrepancy between scientific data
and any of the Qur'anic statements. As will be seen presently, the interpretations
put by Watt on the passages he cites are wrong. And it is surprising that in
advancing his assumption he has not taken into account, not to speak of a umber
of Arabic works on the subject,
4
even such a best-seller in Europe as M. Bucaille's
La Bible, Le Coran et Ia Science which, appearing for the first time in 1976, had run
into 12 editions within ten years
5
and had been translated into at least three other
European languages including English and seven Asian languages before Watt
penned his above mentioned statement.
I Ibid., 2, 44.
2
The second Vatican Council (1962-1965) adopted a document which recognizes that the Books of the Old Testament
contain material that is imperfect and obsolete. See M. Bucaille, What ir the Oriigin ofMan? The An.rwm ofScience and the Holy
Striptum, 4th edition, Seghers, Paris, 1988, p. 15.
' Jean Guitton (1987), quoted in ibid., 10.
4
For instance MuHAMMAD WAFA AL-'AMhu, Al-'l.rbdrat a/-'1/miyyah Ff ai;Qur'an, second impression, Cairo, 1401 (1981)
and HANAFi AHMAD, AI-Tafrir a/- 'I/mif li 'Ayat ai-Kawniyyah Fi ai;Qur'dn, Cairo, n.d.
5
The 13th edition was published in Paris in 1987.
The word 'art/ occurs in the Qur'an some 461 times. Most of the uses are in
connection with a description of Allah's absolute dominion over the entire
universe and His power of creation. At a number of places the word clearly
comes in the sense of country or dominion;
1
while at other places it is used
metaphorically to denote worldly life.
2
The passages wherein it occurs with any
description of its shape and nature may be divided into two categories. In one
category it is mentioned in combination with or in comparison to the mountains
and rivers. Here the emphasis is on how the earth has been made suitable and
useful for man and other creatures. Here the listeners' or readers' attention is
drawn mainly to the objects of nature and the land-surface falling within his
immediate view. In other words, the earth in these passages means the land or
land-surface falling within an observer's immediate view, in contradistinction to
the mountains and rivers, rather than the entire earth as a unit. In the second
category of passages the word occurs in relation to the sun, the moon, the skies
and the universe in general. Here the earth is spoken of as a unit and the
description really gives an insight into its shape, position and even movement in
space.
In view of this general nature of the Qur'anic use of the expression 'arrj Watt's
statement of the subject is partial and faulty in three main respects. In the first
place, he concentrates on the passages of the first category and takes them to
refer to the shape of the earth as a unit, which is not the case. Second, despite the
diversity and differences in the descriptive expressions in the passages he cites he
imposes on them all identical meanings because, as he says, the "first audience" of
the Qur'an could not have supposed that the earth's shape could have been
otherwise than flat. A really objective approach would have suggested greater care
in understanding the precise implications of the different expressions employed in
the passages. Watt even neglects to note the significance of a passage in its
entirety, omitting its material part from his translation. Third and more
importantly, he does not at all take into consideration the second category of
passages wherein the shape and position of the earth as a unit, as also those of the
others planets and stars in the space, are indicated and which contain astounding
scientific data not known to man at the time the Qur'an was revealed.
That the term 'arcj used in most of the passages cited means the land-surface
falling within the observer's immediate view, rather than the earth as a planet, is
1
For instance in 7:110; 14:13; 20:57; 20:63; 26:35; 28:57. Incidentally the word 'earth' seems to be an adaptation of 'ard.
2
As in 9:38.
very clear from 88:19-20 and 78:6-7 which Watt cites. The two passages, together
with Watt's translations, run respectively as follows:
...::....-.6... 4 ..}' J \II Jl J 4 Jl J
"and [to] the mountains how they are set up? and [to] the earth how it is spread out?" (88:19-20)
bu) bl..f..- uPJ\11
"Did we not make the earth an expanse and the mountains pegs?" (78:6-7)
Clearly, at both the places 'ari means the immediately visible plain land in
contradistinction to "the mountains" that also are visible. For, if the earth as a
whole is implied, the reference to the mountains distinct from it would be both
incongruous and superfluous here. It is further noteworthy that the 'qyah 78:7
speaks of mountains as "pegs". Modern scientific knowledge confirms that
mountains, like pegs have deep roots embedded in the ground and that these
stabilize the earth's crust.
1
In another place the Qur'an very clearly says that Allah
"has set firm mountains in the earth so that it would not shake with you."
2
The
'qyahs 88:6-7 and 78:6-7 do in fact refer to these scientific facts and how Allah has
set the earth's surface and the mountains for making the earth suitable for human
habitation. They do not speak about the earth's shape. Watt has simply
misunderstood and misinterpreted the 'qyahs.
Let us now consider the material words in relation to 'ar1 in all the passages
cited. They are mentioned below together with Watt's rendering of material
words (italicized) in them.
(1) 79:30 = t....I>.J .;.lb ..}'}liJ "spread out".
(2) 88:20 = ...::....-.6... 4 ..}'}11 Jl J "spread out".
(3) 78:6 = bl..f..- uPJ\11 (mihadd) "make an expanse".
( 4) 51:48 = t....8) ..}' J \IIJ ifarashnahd) "laid flat".
(5) 71:19 = uPJ\11 ....UIJ (bisatd) "made an expanse".
(6) 20:53 = 1-4-- ..}'J\11 (.S.iJI (mahdd) "made a bed".
(7) 13:3 = ..}' J \II J..,o (.S.iJI yo J (madda) "spread out".
(8) 2:22 ..}'J\11 (.S.iJI (jiarashd) "made a carpet".
Needless to say, each one of these expressions like dabaha, etc., admits
of a variety of meanings. Watt himself admits this fact in a general way not only
with reference to these passages but also with regard to the others he has quoted
1
See for instance Andre Cailleux, Anatomy of the earth, London, 1968, p. 220; Frank Press and Raymond Siever, Earth,
Sanfrancisco, 1982, p. 413.
2
Q. 16:15.
by saying at the outset of his work that he has so selected the translation as "best
brings out the points being illustrated by the quotations."
1
Now, the very first expression in the series, da&ahd, is noticeably distinctive
and different in genre from the rest. Watt, following many other previous
translators, renders it as "spread out". But the exact and correct meaning of the
term, keeping in view its root, rather provides a very positive Qur'anic evidence
in support of the spherical shape of the earth. For d a ~ a means to "shape like an
egg", its noun being dahryah, which the Arabs still use to mean an egg.
2
The second expression, sufi&at, is equally significant. It is derived from sat/;
(F) which means surface, outer layer, outer cover, roof, deck, plane, etc. Hence
sa(q al-bal;r means sea-level, sat!; ma'il means inclined plane, sat!Jf means external,
outward, superficial, etc. Keeping this original meaning of the root-word in view
and approaching the Qur'anic statement at 88:20 with our modern knowledge
that the interior of the earth is full of gaseous and liquid materials (lava) and that
the land-surface is only an outer cover resembling the skin of an egg, and that it is
also a plane, it would be seen how very appropriate, scientific and significant is
the term supqat used here in describing the land-surface of the earth, particularly
after the description in the previous 'qyah, 88:19, of how the mountains have been
affixed. The Qur'anic statement at 88:20 may thus be very appropriately and more
correctly rendered as: "(Do they not look) to the earth how it has been surfaced
and planed?"
The third word in the series is mihiid and it may be considered along with the
sixth in the series, mahd in 20:53, because they both belong to the same root. The
former means resting place, abode, bosom, cradle and, figuratively, fold (in which
something rests). And A.J. Arberry has very correctly translated the expression at
78:6 as: "Have We not made the earth as a cradle?"
3
In fact, this very word mihad
occurs at six other places in the Qur'an,
4
and at each of these places it clearly
bears the meaning of an abode, a habitat, a resting place, etc. In any case, even
without regard to what we know of the interior of the earth, to translate the
expression as "made an expanse" would be quite remote from the original sense
and would be inappropriate here.
1
WAIT, Mubammad'.r Mecca,2.
2
M. FATHi 'UTHMAN, "AI-'arc{ Ft ai;Qur'Jn ai-KarJm", Promding.r of the Fir.rl I.rlamic Geographical Conference", Riyadh,
1404/1984, Vol. IV, 127; A.M. SoLIMAN, Sdentific Trendr in teb.Qur'Jn, London (fa-Ha Publications), 1985, p.16.
3
A.J. ARBERRY, op.cit, 626.
4
Q. 2:206; 3:12; 3:197; 7:41; 13:18 and 38:56.
Similarly mahd means bed or cradle. It occurs at four other places in the
Qur'an, once in connection with 'art/ in 43:10 and thrice in connection with 'Isa's
speaking to men even while in the cradle.
1
And again, A.J. Arberry very
consistently renders the term at both 43:10 and 20:53 as cradle. In fact, he
translates the statements at both the places uniformly as: "He who appointed the
earth to be a cradle for you."
2
Watt, on the other hand, is not so consistent. He
translates the expression at 78:6 as "make an expanse" and at 20:53 as "made a
bed".
Similarly inconsistent is his translation of the fourth and eighth terms in the
series, farashnaha and firdshd. The primary meaning of farasha is to spread out as a
bed, to pave, to cover, etc.; while firash means bed, mattress, bedspread, cushion,
carpet, etc. Nevertheless, while Watt has translated this last expression at 2:22 as
"made a bed", he has rendered the word at 51:48 as "laid flat", though the farthest
manoeuvring that could legitimately be done here is to render it as "spread out as
a bed" or "laid out as a bed", but not quite as "laid flat".
There remain two other words to consider, bisdf and madda, the fifth and
seventh respectively in the series. The same meaning of laying or spreading as a
bed is appropriate for bisat, and Arberry has indeed translated the whole
statement at 71:9 as: "And God has laid the earth for you as a carpet."
3
Watt,
however, has rendered the expression as "made an expanse". As regards the word
madda, its primary meaning is "he extended" or "he expanded". It may even mean
"he spread out", as Watt translates it. The term has been used in the Qur'an in
several other senses. At 84:3-4 the expression is in its passive form, muddat, and it
clearly bears the meaning of "is flattened"-"And when the earth shall be
flattened and it will throw off what is in it and shall get emptied" ( J ..;_,.LA <.? J \II \j\ J
...:...b:.; J 4..; L. . . : . . . A l ~ . This is a description of what will happen when the earth (world)
will be brought to an end and the resurrection will take place. Hence the sense in
which muddat is used here cannot be applied to the same term or its derivatives
which speak about the normal situations of the earth and which therefore must
bear a meaning other than "made flat" or "flattened". Conversely, this passage is a
pointer to the fact that prior to the event of the earth's being brought to an end it
is as a whole not flat.
1
Q. 3:40; 3:110 and 19:314.
2
A.J. ARBERRY, op.cit., 505 and 314.
' Ibid., 609.
Leaving aside the differentials in meanings and accepting the renderings as
"spread out", "made an expanse", etc., none of the eight statements cited does
really say that the earth as a whole is a flat space; for the passages speak of the
earth or land as it comes within the immediate view of the observer. Moreover,
though the sense of making level or plane may be said to be common to all the
terms, this sense does not in fact run counter to the spherical nature of the earth
as a whole. The accepted geometrical and mathematical definition of "plane" is
"surface such as that the straight line joining any points on it is touching on all
points. "
1
Hence, in spite of the earth as a whole being spherical, its surface is
nonetheless level, plane, spread out or even flat.
The inherent relativity of the expression madda or "spread out" applied to
earth in such passages was indeed pointed out some eight centuries ago by Imam
Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (544-606 H./1150-1210 A.C.) who was quite conscious of
the spherical nature of the earth. Referring to the term madda used at 13:3 and
15:19 he makes two points. He says that the object of these passages is to bring
home the theme of the existence of the Creator. The reference has therefore to
be to such objects as are visible and obvious to the listener. Hence the term 'art/
in these passages has to be understood in the sense of the part of it which comes
to the immediate view of the observer.
2
Second, he points out that the earth "is
an extremely large ball; but a part of a gigantic ball, when looked at it, you will see
it as a plain surface. This being the case, the difficulty of which you speak ceases
to exist. The proof of this [explanation] is the saying of Allah: (We have set the
mountains as pegs (b\j) Jl:>rJIJ- 78:7). He calls them pegs notwithstanding the fact
that there may be extensive plain surfaces on top of them. So is the case here. "
3
Far from reproducing or reflecting the erroneous world-view prevailing in
seventh century Arabia the Qur'an indeed goes far beyond the scientific
knowledge of the time and speaks of scientific facts and truths that have only
recently been discovered by man. In fact, if Watt had looked carefully enough he
would have seen that at least in three of the passages he has cited to support of
his assumption there are such extraordinary facts as well as significant pointers to
the spherical nature of the earth. Unfortunately, while quoting these passages in
1
Oxford Ad1Jamd Learner's Dittionary of Cumnt Englirb, 19th impression, 1984, p. 636.
2
Al-Tajjfral-Kabir, XIX, 3.
' Ibid, 170. The Arabic text runs as follows .
..J_,; <#j,J..JI) )_f"; l.o Jij .!.IJ.\5" ,)\5' ljl )cS_,:..-..ll c.<} 4'u 4,11 u)o; ljl4;.- :o.J,;j> ,:,;>.. <...,k.JI ;_?JI) w..Ji J ;_f" .#
'-"' .!.llill ..,_,...... >....P c_.k..- J--< .u e:- "" <""} Jt.,..J'Jl Jw
translation he has omitted in two of these three passages those very portions that
contain such facts. One of these passages is 13:3 which in its entirety runs as
follows:
J'+:]l J..lll .:_r->. Jj 4J j.u.- .;..1_;..!)1 JS' .y J J 4J J ..}> J \'I .M <.>..U\ yo J
0JA t_,.Al du..'l .. !.m J 01
"And He it is Who spread the earth, and made in it firm mountains and rivers. And of all fruits He
has made pairs of two (of every kind). He makes the night cover the day. Surely there are signs in
this for a people who reflect." (Muhammad Ali's translation with slight modification)
In this passage there are two significant statements. The first is: "And of all fruits
He has made pairs of two (of every kind)". The implication of this statement has
become clear only in modern times with the discovery of sexes in plants and
fruits, indeed of pairs in every thing.
1
In fact the statement has long been
translated in that sense.
2
Needless to say that no one in the seventh Christian
century did have any inkling of the concept of pairs or sexes in plants, fruits and
other things; nor was it possible to comprehend the full significance of this
Qur'anic statement before the scientific discoveries of modern times in this
respect.
The second significant statement in the passage (13:3) is: "He makes the night
cover the day." Unmistakably, the sense here is that of the night gradually taking
the place of the day- a phenomenon which is understandable only with reference
to the spherical shape of the earth and its rotation;
3
for, if it was uttered in the
context of a flat earth, the statement would have been framed to convey the sense
of the day and night alternating each other, not "covering the day with the night",
as indeed Arberry translates the clause.
4
The second passage is 20:53 which runs as follows:
.y 1,.,.\J) 4! L:>...r"f; J;fJ 4J ..!..lL J \-4-> ..}>J\'1 <.>..UI
"He Who made the earth a cradle for you and threaded for you in it routes; and sent down
from the sky water. Thus We have produced thereby pairs of plants, each different from the
other."(20:53)
The scientific truth about sexes in plants is stated here more pointedly and
explicitly, thus supplementing the information contained in 13:3 noted above.
The third of the passages is 51:47-48. It runs as follows:
0 J.uWI L-W) ..}> J \'IJ 0 .Y-" ,..J lil J
1
See also Q. 36:36 and 51:49 on this point.
2
See for instance M. Pickthall's and A. Yusuf Ali's translations and comments on this 'ifyah.
' See below (text) for other Qur'anic references on this point.
4
ARBERRY, op.dt., 239.
"And the sky We have made it with Hands; and verily We are Expanders (are in the process
of expanding it). And the earth, We have laid it out, and how Excellent are the authors of laying
out!"
Here the expression "and verily We are Expanders" (0 _,...... _,..J Ul J) is very
significant. Watt has rendered this part of the statement as: "and it is we who
make it of vast extent. "
1
But it is to be noted that the construction is in the
nominal form (a.,...... I u...,.,.) in contrast with the verbal (....,W u...,.,.) form of the
immediately preceding expression, which is also in the past tense. It is a
well-known rule of Arabic construction that the nominal form together with the
emphatic lam is used to indicate a habitual or continual act or process of doing.
Thus the correct translation of the expression would be: "And verily We are
expanders" or "We do expand" or "We are in the process of expanding it".
Indeed, A.J. Arberry is just correct in rendering this part of the statement as "and
We expand it wide."
2
Now, this statement assumes a great significance in the light of modern
scientific information that the universe is expanding at a staggering speed. It says
that everything in space (the skies) -the constellations together with their planets
and satellites, etc., are all flying straight ahead at an unimaginable speed. The sun
itself, together with its planets and their satellites as a whole are reckoned to be
moving at the staggering speed of almost a million miles a day towards the
constellation Lyra which itself is moving away at a similar speed! Thus the space,
i.e. the sky, is continually expanding. In the light of this modern knowledge the
Qur'anic statement "We have created the heaven, and indeed We do expand it"
assumes a bewildering significance, besides being surprisingly precise.
Thus three of the eight passages cited by Watt to prove what he supposes to
be scientific errors in the Qur'an contain at least four such facts as run directly
counter to his assumption. Two of these facts relate to the shape of the earth and
two relate to creation and the universe in general. These facts are: (a) that Allah
has shaped the earth like an egg (daf?ahti); (b) that "He makes the night cover the
day" (13:3), which is an indication of the spherical nature of the earth; (c) that
plants and fruits, besides other objects, are created in pairs (of sexes) and (d) that
the sky (space) is continually being expanded (51:47). There are indeed many
other passages of scientific import in the Qur'an, specially relating to the origin
and creation of man, nature and the universe.
3
It is not feasible here to refer even
1
WAIT, Muhammad'.r Mecca, 6.
2
ARBERRY,rp.dt., 545.
' See for instance M. BuCAILLE, rp.dt.
briefly to all of them. A few of them bearing on the question of the earth's shape
may, however, be mentioned here.
The most significant in this respect is the statement at 91:6 which says that the
earth has been thrown (in its orbit? in the space?) like a ball. The statement runs
as : t...L:.J. L.. J J> J \JIJ - "By the earth and He Who threw it (like a ball." It may be
noted that like the word (79:30) this word faqahd also has been rendered by
many early scholars as "spread out", "expanded", etc. Significantly, however, both
Al-Qurtubi and Al-Shawkani, while noticing the interpretations put on the word
by the previous commentators, point out that the Arabs understood the word in
the sense of going or moving away.
1
The meaning is further clarified by the
author of the Ttij al- 'Artis who, while noticing the meanings put on the word by
the early commentators, points out that the word means "throwing" something,
for instance a ball (1+. I.S"J L:.J. J ).
2
This expression thus agrees well with the
meaning of dahaha as explained above and both indicate the spherical shape of
the earth and its rotation in the space. It may further be noted that the statements
immediately preceding 91:6, particularly 91:3-4, have a significant bearing on the
point as they describe the relationship of day and night with the sun. The
statements run as: J..!IJ \....')\.,. J4-JIJ - "By the day as it reveals it (the sun).
By the night as it conceals it." These two statements make it quite clear that it is
the action of the day and the night which brings to view the sun and conceals it,
not that any movement of the sun causes day and night. The precision in the
statements would be all the clearer if attention is paid to 91:1 wherein the sun is
referred to . It simply states: "By the sun and its brightness" (t...l>....,;, J No
action or verb is ascribed to it here. A little regard to such precise use of words
would make it clear that they imply important scientific facts regarding the shape
of the earth and its rotation.
The significance of the earth's having been "thrown" (taqaht1) becomes very
clear if it is considered along with another very important Qur'anic statement
relating to the origin of the earth itself and of life on it. It says that initially the sky
and the earth were joined together in one mass, that subsequently they were
separated and that every living being on the earth originated in water. The passage
runs as follows:
1
AL-QUR'fUBi, Tafsi'r, XX, 74-75;AL-SHAWKANi, TajSfr, V, 449.
2
T dj a/- 'Ards, X, 223. See also E.W. LANE, Arabic-Engli.rh Leximn, under tahw ( _,.J. ) and taf.ry (_,..1) where, besides the
other meanings, it is noted:" bJ. is said when one throws down a man upon his face." (Cambridge Islamic Texts Society
print, 1984, Vol.II, 1832).
0 y y. <.? J5' ,y L:.l...... J l.....>\.:.A:;.O IZ.J L::;l) ,_;, J \riJ ..;..IJl......JI 0f IJ_, .:r..lll .1- r-l }
"Or, do the unbelievers not see that the heavens and the earth were joined in one mass, and then
We clove them asunder, and made out of water every living being? Will they not then believe?"
(21:30)
The significance of this passage has become clear only with the progress of
scientific knowledge in modern times about the origin of our planet and of life on
it. Another Qur'anic statement directly relating to the earth is 13:41 which says
that it is gradually contracting, as is indeed established by modern research. The
statement runs as follows: . . . ,y ,_;, J '11 _;t; l.if IJ.I- r-l } "Have they not
realized that We bring the earth to contraction in its extremities?" (13:41)
As regards the night gradually merging into the day and vice-versa we have a
number of other Qur'anic statements of which the following are very specific:
(a) J.liJ J4JI d _,; J J4JI J j.JI d _,; -"Thou causest the night to enter into the day
and Thou causest the day to enter into the night." (3:27)
(b) J.liJ J4JI d y. J J4JI J j.JI d y. .u.Ji 04 -"That is because Allah makes the
night enter into the day and makes the day enter into the night. (22:61)
(c) J.ll J J4J! dY- J J4JI J J.ll dY- .u.Ji 0f; r-lf -"Do you not see that Allah makes
the night enter into the day and makes the day enter into the night?" (31:29)
(d) and (e)j.JI J J4J! dY- J J4JI J J.ll dY- -"He makes the night enter into the day
and makes the day enter into the night." (35:13 and 57:6)
(f) ... J4JI....:.. tw J.ll J.A J -"And a sign for them is the night. We gradually
withdraw from it the day." (36:37)
These repeated statements of the Qur'an about the gradual merging of the day
and the night into each other, and not each appearing suddenly on the surface of
the earth as would have been the case if it were flat, are clear pointers to the
spherical shape of the earth. Still clearer, however, is the following:
J.ll )4-:)1 ) J4J! J.ll
"He makes the night roll over the day and He makes the day roll over the night." (39:5).
It is to be emphasized that the word kawwara (whenceyukawwiru) means to roll
into a ball or to make round. In other words, the '!ryah says that the night and the
day are a continuous process round the earth.
(b) Concerning the sky
The Qur'an refers not only to the earth and what it produces by Allah's leave,
it also draws man's attention to the skies and the universe in order to bring home
to him the theme of His Existence and Omnipotence. And in so doing it makes
statements of which the full significance and meaning are unfolding themselves
only with the progress of our scientific knowledge. But as in the case of the earth,
so in respect of the sky Watt states that the Qur'an only picks up the prevailing
erroneous notion and conceives the sky to be something built of solid materials,
"presumably of stone."
1
He bases his assertion on four out of the eight Qur'anic
passages he cites in connection with what he imagines scientific errors in the
Qur'an. These four passages, together with his translation of them, are as follows:
(a) 79:27-28 = U.l_,...,.i cjJ \.A.l..:. .w.i
"Are you harder to create or the heaven he built? He raised up its roof and ordered it."
(b) = JIJ ...:....A1.,.:. ._k')ll Jl 0JA J\,0(
"Will they not regard the camels, how they are formed? and the heaven how it is raised?"
(c) 51:47 = 0y--_,..J l..i\J
"The heaven we have built with hands, and it is we who make it of vast extent.. .. "
(d) 2:22 = W.\) J..>--
11 (Your Lord) made for you the earth a carpet and the heaven an edifice ... "
In the above quoted passages there occur the expressions banahd, banqynahd
and bina' respectively in (a), (c) and (d). Understandably, Watt has so translated
them as would best illustrate the point he wants to make. But even accepting his
rendering of the terms, it may be pointed out that the words "build" and "edifice"
are not exclusively used in respect of solid objects. They may very well be applied
to non-solids as well as abstract ideas and objects. At any rate, his translation of
the expression wa 'inna la-musi'un as "and we make it of vast extent" is not quite
correct. The exact meaning of the expression, as pointed out above, is: "And We
do expand it" or "We are in the process of expanding it."
Now, knowing as we do at the present time that just as an atom is a
"structure" or "edifice" "built" of certain elements, similarly the whole universe
and its component parts, the innumerable systems (like the solar system) as a
whole and each individually are very much a structure, a set-up, an integrated
construction, an organism or, figuratively, even an "edifice". Hence the terms
"built", "created", "formed", etc., may appropriately be applied to them,
especially to the solar system, to which the earth and the neighbouring planets
belong. The question is how one sees it, as Watt himself seems to recognize. The
terms by themselves do not mean that the Qur'an conceives the sky to be
something of a solid object.
1
W ATr, Muhammad's Mea<J, 5.
Similarly the term samk in (c) , which Watt translates as "roof', has other
meanings as well as height, expansiveness, extensiveness and burj or zone of
constellation.
1
Of course the Qur'an does in other places refer to the sky as "the
raised roof' (al-saqf al-maifu'/ and a "protected roof' (saqfan mahfdzan).
3
The word
saqf in Arabic originally means a cover or a roof over anything. The term is
therefore appropriately applicable to the immediate sphere around our
atmospheric belt, or the latter itself, for both of them are very much "protected"
and "protecting" covers over us, the earth, and both of them, as will be seen
presently, are included in al-samd' or the sky as conceived in the Qur'an.
Apart from these four passages, however, there are many other statements in
the Qur'an which Watt does not take into account but which show that its view
of the sky is not so primitive as he thinks it to be. These other passages may be
classified into three broad categories - (a) those that speak about the state of the
sky at the beginning of the creation, (b) those that give an idea of the nature and
contents of the sky as they are now and (c) those that speak about their state in
the end.
As regards the state of the sky at the beginning of the creation, two passages
are of special significance. The one, 41:11, says that at the beginning the sky was
only "smoke" (or vaporous or gaseous- J). The other, 21:30, states that the
skies and the earth were initially one mass but they were subsequently cloven
asunder.
4
Modern scientists have different theories about the origin of the
universe. Neither is the present writer competent to speak on the subject, nor is
the present work a suitable place for a discussion on it. Speaking in general as a
layman, however, two statements may safely be made in this connection. First,
the various modern theories about the origin of the universe seem only to
approximate the position stated so clearly in the Qur'an. Second, these Qur'anic
statements go inconceivably beyond the notion about the sky prevalent in
sixth-seventh century world.
The passages speaking about the nature and contents of the sky are more
numerous. The most striking point in these passages is the plural form, al-samdwdt,
which occurs some 190 times in the Qur'an, while in its singular form, al-samd', it
comes some 120 times. More interestingly, at least at nine places the Qur'an
1
See Usdn al- 'Arab under samk and Tad al- 'Aril.r, VII, 145.
2
Q. 52:5.
' Q. 21:32.
4
See supra, p. 81. The text runs as: ... L...At.a;;.;IZ; L:;lS' ... h'->1) ul)i......JI 011)_, .:.r..i.ll _, r-1}
specifically mentions that there are "seven skies",
1
one adjoining and
corresponding to the other, fibdqa (lil.,b) or in layers.
2
It is now a generally
accepted view with the scientists that the universe consists of several staggeringly
expansive spaces, some enumerating exactly seven, each corresponding to and
adjoining the other and each with its own constellations and meteors! The "skies"
or the "seven skies" spoken of in the Qur'an for about 200 times thus appear to
assume a new significance and meaning in the light of this modern knowledge.
For one thing, no person in the seventh century looking at the sky with bare eyes
and imagining it to be something of a solid structure would venture to say so
categorically and repeatedly that there are seven such structures, one above or
beside the other. Nor was one in need of indulging in such unusual and, in the
Prophet's case, a definitely hazardous statement. In this respect too the Qur'an
goes far beyond the seventh century notion about the sky.
3
Equally significant are the statements about how the skies and objects therein
are held in their respective positions. It is very clearly mentioned that while
"raising" the sky Allah also set the "balance".
4
It is also mentioned that the sky is
not such a structure as is rested on visible pillars.
5
Most important of all, it is
stated that the skies (al-samawat) and the earth are sustained by Allah's will. The
statement runs as follows:
.... ~ i f ..L>i if ~ i 01 Wlj.) J ')Jj 0i ..j>}:liJ ... :JIJL......JI ~ .J.ll 01
"Verily Allah holds the heavens and the earth, lest they should cease to be there; and if they
ceased to be there, there is none except He Who could hold them." (35:41)
The expression "holding" in respect of the "skies" as well as the earth is very
significant. It means that neither is the earth rested on something "solid" nor are
the skies so. In other words, the passage says that they are held in their respective
positions without solid supports, that is in space, by Allah's will and design
A third and bewildering fact mentioned about the sky, as mentioned earlier,
6
is
that it is in the process of continuous expansion. Modern scientific knowledge is
surprisingly in line with this statement of the Qur'an. It may further be noted in
this connection that the Qur'an also describes the seven skies as "seven ways" or
tracks. Thus 23:17 states
1
Q. 2:29; 17:44; 23:17; 23:86; 41:12; 65:12; 67:3; 71:15 and 78:12.
2
Q. 67:3 and 71:15. The term tibdqd, though often translated as "one above the other), more correctly menas "in layers"
or "corresponding to one another". See Lane's Le:..-imn.
' Watt quickly passes over this fact by saying: "There is also mention of seven heavens."(Mubammad's Mecca,5.)
4
Q. 55:7 = 01r.Jit"'JJ4-JJ'L......JIJ
' Q. 13:2 and 31:10.
'' Supra, pp. 78-79.
.:Ji!S- ._;.l>JI ,y L:S' L.. J t;-" \.a6:. ...lA.l J
"And We have created above you seven ways, and We are not unmindful of the creation." (23:27)
The full significance of such statements in the Qur'an may be understood only in
the light of modern scientific knowledge about the movement of the heavenly
bodies.
Another significant fact about the skies mentioned in the Qur'an is that there
are living beings in them, and not simply on this our planet, the earth. Thus 42:29
very distinctly states:
.... '-!b .y l...+,j L.. J J> J ..:..IJL......JI Jb:. .y J
"And of His signs is the creation of the skies and the earth and what He has spread forth in both
of them of living beings."
There are other passages too that give the same impression.
1
Finally, of the
seven skies, the nearest in relation to us is described in the Qur'an as al-sama'
al-duf!Jd or the "nether sky". More significantly, it is very specifically stated that
this the "nether sky" is decorated with stars (kawakib) and incandescent lights
(marabf). Thus 41:12, after referring to Allah's having created the seven skies and
set in each sky its order (U. r! J5' J ..s} J) l,;J.ll J -"and We
decorated the nether sky with incandescent lights."
The same thing is stated in 67:5, while 37:6 states: l,;J.ll L;l
-"Verily We have decorated the nether sky with the stars ..... "
This feature is thus especial to the "nether sky" or the immediate sky. The
reference here is obviously to the vast region of space in which the solar system
and the neighbouring constellations exist. Modern scientific knowledge seems to
be grappling with the nature and scope of the "nether sky" only. According to
the present state of that knowledge, this "nether sky" is "roofed" by the "milky
way" which contains at least one thousand billion stars, none of them being
smaller than the sun!
With regard to this "nether sky" the notion of space is conveyed by the fact
that the heavenly bodies - the sun, the moon, the stars - are described as having
been set "in" {jt) it and that they are made to move in certain well regulated ways
and for specified terms. Thus 13:2 states: J.... i.f f'<>. J5' _,..A)IJ .i"'-" J -
"And He has subjected to order the sun and the moon; each runs (its course) for
a term specified .... " Similarly 36:38-40 states:
t! ...lA.ll 0 _,.,. _;J \5' \s. .,? J jl . .:.. L; yti _,..A) I J y. ;JI .1-..u; .!llj 4J _,A.:..-..l i,f _r-; J
1
See for instance Q. 16:49; 17:55; 19:93; 21:19; 23:71; 24:41; 27:65; 28:18; 30:26.
0 .;.ill .j j5' ) J4-JI d.\..... J..ll '1) _r-<)1 .!l y.lj 0! 4J '1
"The sun runs its course to a destination for it; that is the ordaining of the Almighty, the
All-Knowing. And the moon We have set for it stations, till it reverts to the like of a withered
palm-bough. It behoves not the sun to overtake the moon, neither does the night outstrip the day.
And each swims in an orbit (space)."
Whatever interpretation one may like to put on the terms mustaqarr and falak
in the above passage, the sense of motion and movement on the one hand, and
that of space on the other, are all too clear from the expressions yajrii, tajrf and

That the term sama' (sky) embraces the open space above (or around) us is
clearly indicated by such passages as 16:79 and 30:48. The first passage states:
.. L.......JI y. J -.::.>l.f"'--" _)..)1 Jl IJ.I- r-ll
"Do they not look at the birds subjected to order in the midst of the sky? .... "
The second passage, 30:48, states:
..... J.,? .. L.......JI .j _r.a c'-<)1 j.. .1- -slJI ....Ui
"It is Allah Who sends the winds that raise the clouds. Thus He spreads them in the sky as He
wills .... "'
Coming to the group of passages that speak about the end, the most important
thing to note is that the skies, along with the stars, the planets and all the other
creation, will be brought to an end. "That day We shall roll up the sky like the
rolling up of the scroll of writings. As We began the first creation, We shall repeat
it ... "
2
That day the sky will "disintegrate with clouds;
3
it will come up with "visible
smoke";
4
it "will be in a state of commotion";
5
it "will be rent asunder and turn
red like paint";
6
it "will be like molten brass";
7
the stars will be displaced and
scattered
8
and the sun and the moon will be joined together.
9
Finally, a new world
and new skies will be ushered in, as the Qur'an states:
.... d)L.......ll ) ,_;. }11 ,_;. }11 J..y i Y-
"That day the earth will be exchanged for another earth, and the skies too." (14:48)
1
The Qur'an sometimes also figuratively employs the term .ramd' for rain. Such passages are not, however, relevant to
the present discussion.
2
Q. 21:104 = ... '"""" c;J.>. J} d.4 W"" j-.JI .} ,L....JI ..s_,k t y.
' Q. 25:25 = >S:.")I.JI JJ J rw.l4 ,L....J, r _, J
4
Q. 44:10 =""' ,L....JI <)(; tY. ..,..Z;li
' Q. 52:9 = ';y ,L....J, ;_,..; r _,
6
Q. 55:37 = 01.A..UilS" ;, J) .,:..;15:; ,L....JI .,;....i..!.;l bli
7
Q. 70:8 = J+..lllS" tY.
' Q. 82:1-2 = .:.>pi ..,.s"I}:Jibl J
9
Q. 75:9 = .r.iJIJ )
THE AllEGED CONTEMPORARY ERRORS IN THE QUR'AN 87
Thus will be the end of the present state of the world and the universe and the
beginning of a new life and a new world - the hereafter.
The process thus described belongs to the future, and Allah Alone knows
when and how these will be effected. So far as modern science is concerned, it
only speculates that the world may come to an end as a result of some serious
disturbance and dislocation in the solar and planetary systems. It is thus not in
disharmony with the Qur'anic statements noted above.
The expressions "folding up", "rent asunder" and the like used in connection
with the end of the skies may give an impression that these are objects susceptible
of being "broken up". Like the terms "edifice" (bina) and "roof' (saqf), these
expressions also may be interpreted without assuming the skies to be "solid"
objects, particularly as the process described includes the stars, the planets and
other heavenly bodies. Similarly, the existence of living beings in the skies does
not mean that these latter should be solid objects; for, just as the earth is set in
the sky (space), so there are other earths in the skies. The Qur'an very clearly
states at 65:12: ... ~ J> J '11 .:r J ..:.>IJL...... C::' Jl>- L>.i.JI .u.Ji - "Allah is He Who created
the seven skies, and of the earth the like of them." (65:12)
Also, it should be noted that the other living beings may have other types of
physique and constitution; so their places of habitation may be different in nature
than that of ours. Again, since even human beings become "weightless" at a
certain distance in the space and may move about therein without the "support"
of "solid" objects, it would be wrong to assume on the basis of the existence of
living beings in the skies that these latter are therefore "solid" things.
It should be clear from the above discussion that there are certain expressions
in the Qur'an which, if approached with the primitive notion about the sky,
would fit in with that notion, but they are very much appropriate to the modern
concept of the sky and the universe. Above all, it should not be lost sight of that
the present state of our knowledge is confined only to a part of what constitutes
the "nether sky", al-sama' al-duf!Jd. The region lying beyond this nearest sky with
all its stars and planets, is simply beyond our knowledge. Even the scientists
admit that what they have hitherto learnt about the extent and nature of the sky is
only a microscopic particle in relation to what remains unknown of it. What lies
beyond this known or supposedly known region is completely dark to us. In view
of all these it would be simply presumptuous to assume that the Qur'anic
statements about the sky are not in accord with modern scientific knowledge. At
88 THE QUR'AN AND 11-IE ORIENTALISTS
any rate, Watt's assumption that the Qur'anic view of the sky is pnmltlve,
reflecting the state of knowledge in the seventh century is wrong in three main
respects. He picks up only a few statements in the Qur'an, approaches them with
the "primitive" notion and puts a very narrow construction on them. Second, he
ignores a large number of other statements in the Qur'an that are surprisingly in
accord with modern scientific information about the sky and the significance of
which may be fully appreciated with the further progress of our knowledge.
Third, he seems to assume that the modern scientists have the last word about
the sky and that nothing remains to be known about it, which is not at all the
case; for the scientists themselves admit that they have not fathomed even a
particle of the vast and bewildering creation, the sky.
PART II
THE ORIENTALISTS ON THE QuR'ANIC WAI;:lY
CHAPTER IV
THE ORIENTALISTS ON THE QUR' ANIC W AljY:
I. THE VIEWS OF MUIR AND MARGOLIOUTH
I. PRELIMINARY REMARKS
The genuineness of the Qur\in as Allah's words and a divinely sent-down
scripture, the claim of Islam as a divinely communicated religion and the status of
Mul).ammad (p.b.h.) as Allah's Prophet and Messenger, all revolve round the
question of waf?y or divine communication to him. Naturally, therefore, the
subject of waf?y has received a good deal of the orientalists' attention. Especially
since the middle of the nineteenth century they have advanced a number of
assumptions and theories about it. In general, the aim of all these theories and
assumptions is to show, by one argument or another, that the texts making up the
Qur'an were MuQ.ammad's (p.b.h.) own composition. The most that the
orientalists seem to concede is that MuJ:lammad (p.b.h.) might have been sincere
in his conviction that he was given the texts by Allah; nevertheless these were the
products of his own mind and thought.
It is understandable that neither any orientalist, nor, for that matter, a
non-Muslim, could conscientiously and without being skeptical about his own
religion admit that Mu};lammad (p.b.h.) was Allah's Messenger and that the
Qur'an is Allah's words. What is special with the orientalists, however, is that
they do not leave the matter there by simply denying divine origin for the Qur'an
and divine commission for Mul).ammad (p.b.h). They proceed further than that
and endeavour to show, from the Islamic sources and texts, that that really is the
case. And in so far as they do so, they in effect assume the role of missionaries of
their own faiths and they generally twist the facts and misinterpret the texts in
order to sustain their assumptions.
Since the second half of the nineteenth century the orientalists' views about
the Qur'anic wal;y have passed through three distinct stages of evolution. The first
stage started with the publication in 1858 of William Muir's Lfe of Mahomet. His
views and assumptions about waf!y and the Prophethood of Mul)ammad (p.b.h.)
in general were adopted more or less by almost all the other writers during the
rest of the century and the first decade of the twentieth century. The state of the
orientalists' attitude in this respect at the beginning of the twentieth century was
reflected, with some modification and addition, in David Samuel Margoliouth's
Mohammed and the Rise of Islam, the third and revised edition of which was
published in 1905. The second stage of development took place since then and
was best typified by the writings of Richard Bell since the thirties till the early
fifties of the century. The third and contemporary stage began with the
publication in 1953 of William Montgomery Watt's Muhammad at Mecca. He has
since then produced other works, notably his Islamic Revelation in the Modern World
(1969) and Muhammad's Mecca (1988). Drawing on and building upon his
predecessors' views, particularly those of his preceptor Bell, Watt has advanced a
good deal of assumptions and conclusions about waf!y and the nature of the
Qur'an. In the present and following three chapters, these three stages in the
development of the orientalists' views about waf!y are analysed and examined.
II. MUIR'S ASSUMPTIONS
Muir's basic assumption was that Mul).ammad (p. b. h.) was ambitious and that
being depressed by the debasement of his people he sought relief in meditation
and reflection at Mount I:Iira'. Gradually certain grand ideas, such as God the
Sole Creator and Ruler, the wretchedness of heathenism and idolatry,
resurrection, judgement and recompense of good and evil, and life after death,
etc., took shape in his mind. He gave vent to these ideas in what is called
"fragments" of poetry and "soliloquy" on the state and prospects of mankind, and
in prayers for guidance. As instances of these early "fragments" of poetry Muir
quotes in his own translation surahs 103 (ai-'Asr) and 100 (ai-'.Adrydt); and as
instances of "soliloquy" and "prayer" he quotes, respectively, surahs 101
(aiQdri'ah) and 1

Muir admits that these were "couched in words of
rare force and beauty". Sometimes the "oracle", further says Muir, came "direct
from the Deity, speaking as 'We', and to Mahomet as 'Thou'." As an instance of
this last category he quotes in translation surah 95 (ai-Ttn).
2
Yet, says Muir, the conviction of being inspired was not attained by
Muhammad (p.b.h.). It came to him "after a protracted period of mental throes."
In the meantime he is said to have raised the "voice of expostulation and alarm",
as in surah 104 (ai-Humazah), and to have alluded to Arab and Jewish legends as
well as to "national miracles" and sentiments. As instances of these, part of surah
89 (ai-Fqjr) and surahs 105 and 106 ( ai-Ffl and ai-'IIdj) in full are quoted in
' MuiR, Life et.:, third edn. 35-39.
2
Ibid, 39.
MUIR AND MARGOLIOUTH ON THE QUR'ANIC W AHY 93
translation.
1
MuQ.ammad (p.b.h), says Muir, was still groping for the truth, and
surah 90 (al-Ba/ad) is quoted in full in translation in support of this statement.
2
Thus the Prophet, according to Muir, continued to give "vent to his reveries in
poetry" for several years "before he assumed the office of a divine teacher."
During this period a small group including Waraqah, 'Ali, Khaclijah and 'Abu
Bakr (r.a.) became his followers, the first three, says Muir, putting the early surahs
to writing, for "Mahomet did not himself write."
3
Outside that little circle,
continues Muir, his preachings were met by gross ignorance and opposition, the
Quraysh leader 'Abu J ahl and his group sneered at him and the general body of
Quraysh remained "careless and indifferent."
At such a stage, says Muir, the need for appearing as a Prophet was brought
home to MuJ:lammad (p.b.h.) when, the "more susceptible among the citizens",
while listening to him, pointed out that they would lead a purer life if a Prophet
was sent to them, just as Prophets had been sent to the Jews and Christians. In
support of this statement Muir cites the Qur'anic passage 35:42 and says that
Mul;lammad (p.b.h.) felt the force of the reply and made a searching of his own
heart whereby he came to the conviction that the ideas and compositions he had
been putting forth all constituted a "supernatural call, a divine mission."
4
In such
a state of mind he sought reassurance in God's past favours on him as is evident
from surahs 93 and 94 (ai-Sharb).
5
Finally, while seated or wandering
amidst the peaks of I;Iira', "an apparition rose before him". Jibril stood "close and
clear beside him in a vision" and "approaching within 'two bow-lengths', brought
from his master the memorable behest of surat a!- 'Aiaq.
6
"Thus was Mahomet
led", concludes Muir, "after a protracted period of doubt and hesitancy- to give
forth his message as proceeding directly from the Almighty. Henceforth he spoke
literally in the name of the Lord. And so scrupulous was he, ... that every sentence of
the Coran is prefaced by the divine command, SPEAK or SAY; which, if not
expressed, is always to be understood."
7
Even after that he was taunted as a poet,
a sorcerer or one possessed by the demons. Hence he fell back on his
commission and in his perplexity stretched himself on his bed, wrapping his
garments around him and "fell into a trance". The angel was "at hand" and the
' Ibid., 30-40.
2
Ibid., 41.
' Ibid.
' Ibid., 42-43.
' Ibid., 43. Muir quotes here these two slirahs in full in translation.
6
Ibid., 45-46.Muir quotes here the entire slirah in translation.
7
Ibid., 46. Muir quotes in the footnote .rlirah 112 (a!-
Prophet was "aroused from despondency to energy and action" by the
reanimating message of surat ai-Muddaththir.
1
Muir claims that he has thus traced from the "various intimations gathered
from the Coran itself' the steps by which Mul;lammad (p.b.h.) was led to assume
the office of Prophet.
2
Muir then summarizes what he calls the traditional account
by reproducing mainly the account given by Al-Waqidi. In conclusion he refers to
the manners and methods of the coming of wai!J, which he calls the Prophet's
"ecstatic periods" and says that those were "reveries of profound meditation,
swoons connected with morbid excitability of mental or physical constitution",
which varied at different periods and under different circumstances.
3
Thus, according to Muir, Mul;lammad (p.b.h.), by seeing the debased condition
of his people, took to meditation and reflection as a result of which certain grand
ideas about God and man came to his mind, that he gave vent to those ideas in
fragments of poetry and soliloquy, that when some of his listeners said that they
would be more amenable to the preachings of a Prophet, he rethought his
position and persuaded himself that the ideas and messages he had been giving
out were from God, that in that state of mind he saw an "apparition" which he
thought to be the angel delivering to him a text and that he continued to receive
and give out such texts through ecstatic "swoons" and "trances" which were due
to the morbid excitability of his mind and constitution. The last mentioned aspect
of Muir's suggestions is only an extension of his other assumption made in
connection with the Prophet's childhood that he was a victim of epilepsy or
fainting fits.
These assumptions and suggestions are all wrong and untenable, being based
on a gross distortion of the facts and circumstances relating to the coming of w a ~
to the Prophet. They are also illogical and inconsistent.
Muir's basic assumption is that Mul;lammad (p.b.h.) was ambitious and made
preparations for playing the role of a Prophet. Yet it is suggested that he did not
reach the conviction of being "inspired" till "after a protracted period of mental
throes" and "honest striving after truth" and further that he gave vent to his
"reveries" for "several years before he assumed the office of a divine teacher."
Clearly, the two strains are antithetical. If the Prophet had really been ambitious
and had made plans and preparations for playing the role of a Prophet, he would
1
Ibid, 47-48.Muir here quotes in translation the .rflrah with slight omissions.
2
Ibid., 48.
' Ibid, 51.
MUIR AND MARGOLIOUTH ON THE QUR'ANIC WAlfY 95
not have embarked upon his project till after his plans had fully matured and he
had setded his lines of action. On the other hand if, on account of his
contemplation, reflection and "honest striving after truth" certain grand ideas
"took clear and definite shape before him", then the Prophet did not obviously
act according to prior plans and preparations. In fact, Muir's theory that
Mul)ammad (p.b.h.) felt the need for appearing as Prophet only after some of his
listeners had said that they would lead a purer life if a Prophet was sent to them is
a contradiction by himself of his theory of ambition and preparation on the
Prophet's part.
In truth, the case was neither the result of plans and preparation nor that of
meditation and contemplation. The Prophet did of course engage himself in
solitary stay and reflection, but that was in no way done in response to his
listeners' desire to have a Prophet among them, nor was the text he delivered to
his people a product of his contemplation. It was something entirely extraneous
to himself and he had in no way thought of it nor expected it. That was the
reason why, by all accounts, he was bewildered, puzzled and terrified at the
sudden turn of events and was not initially sure of his new position. His
uncertainty was clearly due to the absence of any design and ambition on his part
and to the suddenness and unexpectedness of the development. It also shows
that the text which he received as revelation was no product of his thinking and
reflection. But whatever the nature of his initial uncertainty and bewilderment,
that state did not definitely last for "several years" and it was clearly the result of
the coming of the first waqy to him and of the circumstances attending it. Muir
uses this "effect" of the coming of waqy to the Prophet as the cause and prior
circumstances of it - thus completely reversing the process of development as
narrated in all the sources.
Muir states that the Prophet did not attain the conviction of being "inspired"
and did not assume "the office of a divine teacher" for several years. Yet, Muir
would have us believe that the Prophet nonetheless preached his "ideas" and
called upon his people to accept his message so much so that while a small
number became his followers, the generality of the Quraysh mocked at him and
opposed him. Now, the questions that naturally suggest themselves to any reader
of this account are: (a) is it conceivable that a person who is not yet sure about his
own position nor about the nature of his message would at the same time come
out in the open, seek converts to his teachings and face insults and opposition in
consequence? (b) Is it reasonable to assume that a group of persons, however
small, would respond to his call unless they were convinced of the truth and
divine origin of the message? And how could they be so while the preacher
himself of the message was supposedly not so sure about himself and about the
nature of his message? (c) Is it reasonable to think that the great body of the
Quraysh would turn against the preacher unless they were sure about the
seriousness of his claims and of his teachings? Muir does not of course ask
himself these very natural questions but expects his readers to take the absurdity
from him.
But the climax of Muir's inconsistency lies in the suggestion, on the one hand,
that Mul).ammad (p.b.h.) did not give out his call "in the name of the Lord" till
after several years of hesitation and groping for the truth and, on the other, in
the statement that during that initial period the "oracle" did sometimes "come
direct from the Deity, speaking as 'We' and to Mahomet as 'Thou'." Now, one
clearly fails to understand how this type of deliverances differ in any way from
those made subsequently "in the name of the Lord". Indeed, Muir's basic
inconsistency lies in the fact that he cites as many as 18 Qur'anic surahs to
illustrate what he supposes to be pre-wah' or pre-Qur'an deliverances of the
Prophet!
Muir's most absurd proposition is that the need for giving himself out as
Prophet dawned on Muhammad (p.b.h.) when in the course of his preaching "the
more susceptible of the citizens" pointed out that they would lead a purer life if a
Prophet was sent to them, like those unto the Jews and the Christians.
Thereupon, we are told, Mul)ammad (p.b.h.) reassessed his position and through
a process of intense heart-searchings came to the conviction that he was divinely
inspired and ultimately perceived the "vision" of the angel Jibril instructing him to
"recite", i.e., to preach, "in the name of thy Lord". Now, imagine the position of a
person who goes out to his people as a religious preacher and then, after having
preached for several years and after having faced the opposition and ridicule of
his people, takes the hint in the remark of some of them that they would listen to
his counsel of reform if a Prophet came to preach to them. Thereupon the
preacher revises his role and reappears to his people telling them that he has now
received God's commission so that they should follow him. No person with an
iota of common sense and intelligence in him would render himself so ludicrous
MUIR AND MARGOLIOUTH ON THE QUR'ANIC WAijY 97
by acting so foolishly and naively. Yet, Muir not only attributes such naivety to
the Prophet but also expects his readers to believe it.
This absurd story is made up by a series of twisting and mixing up of the facts
on the one hand, and by misinterpreting the texts on the other. In the first place,
Muir twists the well-known fact of the Prophet's bewilderment, apprehension and
uncertainty consequent upon his receipt of the first revelation into a circumstance
prior to that incident. He then mixes this bewilderment and uncertainty on the
Prophet's part with the period of fatrah or pause in the coming of wal;y. Indeed,
his second twisting takes place in connection with this fact. He conveys the
impression that the period of fatrah is coterminous with the period during which
the Prophet is alleged to have been struggling within himself and suffering from
immense mental tension as to whether or not to give himself out as Prophet and
speak in God's name. It may be noted that the nature of fatrah, as mentioned in all
the reports about it, is completely different from what Muir would have us
believe. Although the reports differ about its duration, they are all at one in saying
that it was a period during which there was a pause in the coming of wafty, not a
period previous to it. The Prophet was of course anxious and restless during that
period, but there is no suggestion in the sources that this restlessness was due to
his mental tension about whether or not to speak in the name of God. Muir
simply puts this unwarrantable interpretation on the fact of the Prophet's anxiety
which was due to his non-receipt of wafty for a period longer than the usual
intervals between such communications. Incidentally, the reports about jatrah and
the whole affair of the Prophet's anxiety and tension on that account are
conclusive evidences of the fact that wafty was not something emanating from the
Prophet himself, nor was it something of his own making.
Such twisting of the facts is blended with misinterpretations of the texts,
concluded by the misleading statement that the account of the steps by which
MuJ;lammad (p.b.h.) was led to assume the office of Prophet is gleaned from the
"various intimations gathered from the Coran itself." It must at once be pointed
out that the "steps" which Muir mentions are only distortions and
misinterpretation of the facts, including the fact of fatrah or pause in the coming
of wafty, are mentioned only in the reports, and not at all in the Qur'an. And the
Qur'anic statements which Muir adduces as supportive evidence for his
assumptions are mere misinterpretations by him.
The first notable misuse of the Qur'anic text on Muir's part is with regard to
the statement about the sin of speaking falsely in the name of God. The Qur'an
of course denounces it as the most odious sin, not once but at least at ten places.
1
A simple glance at these passages would make it clear that the statement is made
either to rebut the unbelievers' allegation that what the Prophet was giving out to
them was not really from Allah, or to denounce the practice of some of the
People of the Book who tampered with Allah's revelation and gave out their own
statements as His. Muir arbitrarily infers from these statements of the Qur'an that
the Prophet must have at an early stage of his career struggled within himself over
the question of whether or not to speak falsely in God's name. There is nothing
in the Qur'an to warrant such an assumption.
The second grave misinterpretation of Muir's is his citation of surahs 93
(al-puqii) and 94 as evidence of the Prophet's alleged attempt to
emancipate himself from the alleged mental tension as to whether or not to speak
falsely in God's name and to reassure himself that he had indeed been favoured
by God. The surahs in question of course remind the Prophet of Allah's favours
on him; but there is nothing in them, or in the reports concerning the occasions
of their revelation, to suggest that the Prophet recalled those past favours of
Allah on him by way of emancipating himself from the mental tension as to
whether or not to speak falsely in Allah's name or to persuade himself that what
he was giving out constituted a divine mission. The explanation is solely Muir's
imagination having no foundation in the Qur'an itself, or in the reports.
The third misinterpretation is made in connection with the Qur'anic passage
35:42 which says: "They swore their strongest oaths by Allah that if a warner
came to them they would be better guided than one of the peoples (Jews and
Christians)."
2
Muir assumes that this remark was made by the unbelievers to the
Prophet when he was preaching to them p.nd that because of this remark he
thought of giving himself out as a Prophet. There is nothing in the reports or in
the Qur'an itself to support this assumption. The utter unreasonableness of the
Prophet's undertaking any preaching work before his being sure of his own
position and before giving himself out as Prophet has already been pointed out. It
may be noted here that the statement cited was made by some Quraysh leaders
not to the Prophet but long before his emergence on the scene and as a reaction
1
See for instance Q. 3:94; 6:21; 6:93; 6:144; 7:37; 10:17; 11:18; 18:15; 29:68 and 61:7.
2
See also Q. 6:157.
MUIR AND MARGOLIOUTH ON THE QUR'ANIC W AHY 99
to the report which reached them that the Jews and the Christians belied and
disobeyed their Prophets.
1
Lastly, Muir completely misunderstands or misinterprets the first '4Jah of surat
ai-'Aiaq when he assumes that since this 'qyah is a command to the Prophet,
"Read in the name of your Lord", previously to that he must have been preaching
his doctrines not in the name of the Lord! Indeed, it is on a gross
misinterpretation of this 'qyah and the above noted passage 35:42 that Muir has
built up his entire theory about what he calls the steps by which Mu};lammad
(p.b.h.) came to assume the role of a divine teacher. And to sustain that theory he
has assumed that the Prophet gave out as many as 18 or more surahs of the
Qur'an before he claimed to have received his commission as Prophet and any
wa!!J from Allah!
Whatever view one may take about the Qur'anic passages cited by Muir, the
utter absurdities and inconsistencies of the various aspects of his theory, as
mentioned earlier, render it totally untenable. Nonetheless, Muir's views have
been taken over and adopted by his successor orientalists in some form or other.
Notably, his theory of a period of "pre-wab" or "pre-Qur'an" deliverances by the
Prophet has been reiterated by Bell,
2
though on different grounds; while this
assumption, together with Muir's theory of gradual development of the Prophet's
career and doctrines, have been taken over and pushed to an extreme by Watt
who even suggests that the Prophet did not start with any clear concept of
monotheism which came to him gradually after a prolonged period of preaching
for as any as four or five years! But let us first take into account the views of
Margoliouth, Muir's immediate intellectual successor.
III. MARGOLIOUTH'S ASSUMPTIONS
Like Muir's, Margoliouth's treatment of the subject of waf?y is also an extension
of the theme of ambition and design on the Prophet's part; but Margoliouth
seems to have seen and avoided Muir's inconsistencies, though in the course of
his treatment of the matter Margoliouth also has landed himself into fresh
inconsistencies and absurdities. He assumes straight off that Mu};lammad (p.b.h.),
being highly ambitious, carefully thought out his intended role and when his plans
matured fully he executed them skilfully. According to Margoliouth, the whole
affair of wab was "trickery" and "imposture" from first to last. It is alleged that
' See Al-Qur\Ubi, Tafsir, XIV, 356; Al-Bay9awi, Tajflr, II, 275 and Al-Shawkani,Tajfir, IV, 355-356.
2
See infm, ch. V.
Mul).ammad (p.b.h.), in accordance with his plans, acted the role of a "medium"
1
to "produce messages from the other world" and, in order to ensure his success,
he so manoeuvred the form and manner of those messages that they would
appear to be of "supernatural origin".
2
Thus, to produce a revelation Mul;lammad
(p.b.h.) would "instinctively", to use Margoliouth's words, fall "into a violent
agitation, his face would turn livid, and he would cover himself with a blanket,
from which he would emerge perspiring copiously, with a message ready."
3
This
practice of covering himself with a blanket is said to have been retained by him
"from first to last".
4
It is further alleged that the "epileptic fits" which the Prophet
experienced "at some time" suggested the manner which he "artificially
produced" without "the slightest preparation", accompanied by "snoring and
reddening of the face."
5
This form, says Margoliouth, was "recognized as the
normal form of inspiration. "
6
So adept the Prophet is said to have become in the
matter that he, as Margoliouth puts it, "would receive a divine communication in
immediate answer to a question addressed him while he was eating, and after
delivering it in this fashion, proceed to finish the morsel which he held in his
hand when he was interrupted; or a revelation would come in answer to a
question addressed him as he stood in the pulpit."
7
As regards the contents of the revelations Margoliouth suggests that for these
the Prophet "had to go back to the Jewish and the Christian scriptures" until he
had plenty to say;
8
and that he claimed it a miracle that "he was made acquainted
with the contents of books which he had never read", but that subsequently he
said that "the miracle lay in his unrivalled eloquence."
9
However, the "earliest
scraps of revelation", says Margoliouth, are "imitations of the utterances of
revivalist preachers" like Quss ibn Sa'ida. It is further alleged that the Prophet
imitated the style of the usual Arabian oratory, which was some sort of rhyme,
but "he little understood its nature."
111
1
This characterization of the Prophet as "medium" has been adopted by others like Tor Andrae and Maxime Rodinson
who, however, enlarges it as "megaphone".
2
MARGOLIOUTH, op.dt., 84.
' Ibid., citing Al-Tabari, Tajjir, XXVIII, 4.
4
MARGOLIOUTH, op.dt., 86.
' Ibid. (citingMu.rnad,lV, 222).
'' Ibid.
7
Ibtd. (citing Mu.rnad, VI, 56 & III, 21)
' Ibid., 80, 86.
' Ibid., 87.
"' Ibid., 87-88.
MUIR AND MARGOLIOUTH ON THE QUR'ANIC WAifY 101
As regards the beginning of the revelation Margoliouth says that it was the
Prophet's character to bide his time till the favourable moment. Hence he made
use of a "period of transition between the old life and the new. "
1
Drawing an
analogy with Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon sect, who first wandered in a
forest and subsequently gave out his "trance" utterances as divine message
brought to his notice by angels, Margoliouth says that Mul;ammad's (p.b.h.)
prophetic career likewise began with a period of solitude. "For one month of the
year", says Margoliouth, "the Meccans practised a rite called ta&annuth") which
was a sort of asceticism. During this month "it was Mohammed's custom to retire
to a cave in Mt. Hira ... " At some time in that month when he had been alone in
the valley, "occurred the theophany (or its equivalent)" which led to his "starting
as a divine messenger". Margoliouth further says that in the traditions relating to
the matter the communication is done by Jibril, "the angel who in the New
Testament conveys messages", but in the Qur':in "it appears to be God Himself
Who descended and at a distance of rather less than two bow-shots addressed the
Prophet..." Jibril was substituted "afterwards", says Margoliouth, probably "due to
the development of the Prophet's theology."
2
These are, in the main, the views of Margoliouth regarding waljy and the
Prophet's assumption of the role of a divinely commissioned teacher.
Margoliouth clearly takes over from Muir the theme of ambition and preparation
on the Prophet's part and develops it. Margoliouth also adopts the allegation of
epilepsy and "trances" and attempts to fit these in his theory of "trickery" and
imposture on the Prophet's part by saying that he artificially produced the
symptoms. Above all, Margoliouth stresses, equally as does Muir, that the text of
the Qur':in, or the revelations generally, are the Prophet's own composition. In all
these essential respects, thus, Margoliouth generally follows the foot-steps of his
predecessor. Nevertheless, he adds some new assumptions that will be noticed
presently.
Leaving aside the allegation of ambition and preparation on the one hand, and
that of epilepsy on the other, both of which assumptions are totally groundless,
Margoliouth's main allegation is that of trickery on the Prophet's part. He
suggests that the Prophet so planned the form and manner of the revelation that
it might appear to be of supernatural origin. It is even said that the Prophet had
taken his cue from the phenomenon accompanying his alleged epileptic fits
I Ibid., 90.
2
Ibid., 90-91.
earlier in his life and that he reproduced those phenomena, such as falling into
trance, snoring and reddening of the face, perspiring, or covering himself with a
blanket, etc. It is further said that this "came to be recognized as the normal form
of inspiration". But the instances cited by Margoliouth himself show not a
uniform but various manners of the coming of revelations to the Prophet. Most
of these manners obviously do not fit in with the theory of trickery. Thus, (a)
with regard to be beginning of revelation, which should have been considered the
most important and decisive instance to substantiate the theory, Margoliouth
admits that the Prophet received it all alone in the "valley" where there was none
else to witness the form and manner of its coming. Also, neither does
Margoliouth allege, nor do the sources indicate, that there was any such symptom
on that occasion as falling into trance, etc. (b) Margoliouth cites the instances of
the Prophet's receiving revelations while taking his meals or while standing on the
pulpit. In these cases also the reports cited do not really suggest that the Prophet
affected any such symptoms as snoring, reddening of the face, falling into trance,
etc.
1
Moreover, these instances do not relate to the coming of Qur'anic wa(!y
which is to be always distinguished from the other types of wa(!y which the
Prophet received from time to time. (c) Margoliouth also alleges that the Prophet
let his "confederates act the part of Gabriel or let his followers identify some
interlocutors of his with that angel. "
2
The allegation is totally unjustified; but the
allusion is clearly to the instances mentioned in the sources of Jibril's sometimes
appearing in the form of a human being (sometimes as a stranger, sometimes in
the appearance of a companion of the Prophet named Dabiyah al-Kalbi) and
delivering the revelation to him. In any case, this form, far from convincing the
on-lookers about the supernatural origin of the text, was the more likely to
expose the alleged trickery; for the individual who thus allegedly impersonated
the angel was not to be let alone by the people who were generally in attendance
upon the Prophet for most of the time. In all these cases there was no question of
the Prophet's artificially reproducing the phenomena of epilepsy alleged to the
"normal manner of inspiration". Thus the instances cited by Margoliouth himself
do not at all substantiate the allegation of trickery on the Prophet's part.
Secondly, Margoliouth is also inconsistent in his assumption about the
Prophet's solitary stay and contemplation (tabannuth) at the cave of Hira'.
Margoliouth suggests that like most "mediums" the Prophet planned it as a
1
See Mu.rnad, Ill, 21 and VI, 56. These are reports respectively of 'A'ishah and 'Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (r.a.).
2
Margoliouth, op.cit., 88 (citing Ibn Sa'd, II, 520).
MUIR AND MARGOLIOUTH ON THE QUR'ANIC WAHY 103
period of transition between the old life and the new. In the same breath,
however, it is stated that the Makkans practised this rite during the month of
Ramadan each year and that it was" Mohammed's (p.b.h.) custom to retire to a
cave in Mt. Hira" during that month. Now, the report about the Makkans'
practising t a ~ a n n u t h during Rama<;lan is not at all credible; but leaving aside that
question, it is clearly inconsistent to suggest, as Margoliouth does, that the period
of t a ~ a n n u t h was a planned period of transition from the old life to the new, and
then to say in the same breath that in doing so at Hid' the Prophet was following
a religious rite practised each year by the Makkans. The fact is that here
Margoliouth has been trapped by another incorrect assumption of his, namely,
that the Prophet, prior to his call, followed the religion of the pagan Makkans
including the worship of their gods and goddesses.
1
Margoliouth is so enamoured
of this faulty assumption of his that he unguardedly introduces it here without
caring to see that it is totally inconsistent with his theory of a planned period of
transition used by the Prophet.
Similar inconsistency pervades Margoliouth's assumption regarding the
language and contents of the revelation. Thus, he says that the Prophet claimed
his "unrivalled eloquence" to be a miracle
2
and then, a little further on, states that
he merely imitated the "sort of rhyme" of the general Arabian oratory, "though he
little understood it. "
3
Again, with regard to the contents of the revelation
Margoliouth observes that for them the Prophet "had to go back to Jewish and
Christian scriptures", until the course of events provided him with plenty to say."
4
Elaborating this assumption Margoliouth further says: "Once the head of the
state Mohammed had plenty to say: but at the commencement of his career, the
matter was not provided by the circumstances." Hence "he hit on the plan of
borrowing from the Old or New Testament."
5
The allegation of borrowing from the Jewish and Christian sources has been
dealt with separately.
6
Here it may be noted that Margoliouth practically nullifies
his statement here by another gross inconsistency. Thus, having made the above
mentioned remark he immediately carries out a volte face and says that the Prophet
"followed this safe method" of borrowing from Judaeo-Christian scriptures when
I Ibid., 69-70.
2
Ibid, 87.
' Ibid., 88.
4
Ibid., 80.
' Ibid., 86.
6
Infi"a, ch. II.
he was forced by circumstances to produce revelations in increasing quantities,
but "the earliest scraps of revelation ... appear to have been imitations of the
utterances of revivalist preachers" like Quss ibn Sa'ida.
1
Thus in one breath
Margoliouth would have us believe that at the initial stage when the Prophet had
not much to say he would borrow from the J udaeo-Christian scriptures until the
progress of circumstances provided him with enough to say, and then, agal.n, we
are required to believe that the Prophet would adopt "this safe" method when the
progress of circumstances made it necessary for him to produce revelations in
increasing quantities! The inconsistency seems to have been due to an awareness
on Margoliouth's part that the so-called "earliest scraps of revelation" do not
really bear any resemblance with the Old and New Testament materials and that
those parts of the Qur'an that seem to resemble them in any way are not quite the
initial revelations to the Prophet. As regards the anecdote about Quss ibn Sa'ida
and the Prophet's having allegedly heard him speak at 'Uka? it is far from being
trustworthy. But even taking the report as it is, his reported utterances have but
very faint resemblance with the early surahs. Nor would those utterances make up
a fraction of the materials contained in the early revelations.
In advancing these inconsistent suggestions Margoliouth has resorted to a
good deal of twisting of the facts. Thus the instances mentioned in the sources of
the Prophet's having sometimes experienced hardships while receiving revelations
have been twisted as symptoms of epilepsy; though anyone having an idea of the
disease and its physical and mental effects on its victim would at once recognize
that the Prophet's case was quite different from that ailment. A second twist with
regard to the same fact is the assumption that the Prophet artificially pro.duced
those symptoms, though there is nothing in the sources to indicate that he had
recourse to such trickery. Nor did the many followers and companions who
closely surrounded him for over a score of years ever think such to be the case. A
third twist in the same fact is the assertion that such allegedly artificially produced
symptoms were the "normal" form of inspiration; though it is quite clear from the
sources that the instances of physical hardships accompanying the receipt of
revelations were only exceptional and very few and far between.
Similarly the fact of the angel Jibril's sometimes appearing in the form of a
human being has been twisted as the Prophet's letting "confederates act the part
of Gabriel". As already mentioned, such trickery was the more likely to expose
1
Margoliouth, op.cit., 87.
MUIR AND MARGOLIOUTH ON THE QUR'ANIC WAHY 105
the trick than to impress the divine nature of the revelation upon the audience
present on such occasions. This particular twisting is all the more strange on
Margoliouth's part; for he notes at the same time that Jibril is the angel "who in
the New Testament conveys messages."
1
One could be tempted to ask: If it was
nothing unnatural for Jibril to be the conveyer of messages in the case of the
New Testament prophets, why should it be so in the case of another prophet. To
prove trickery in the latter's case it is necessary to point out the true manners in
which the angel used to deliver messages to the New Testament prophets.
Neither Margoliouth nor any of his intellectual disciples who adopt his views
have, however, done it.
The twisting of the facts is generally done through misinterpretation of the
texts. Indeed, it is often difficult to draw a line of distinction between the two.
Such at least is the case of a writer of revelations who, it is alleged, abjured Islam
because he was convinced that the affair of revelation was a fake.
2
The tradition
cited by Margoliouth in this connection does in fact record the despicable end of
an insincere convert to Islam who used to write down revelations for the Prophet
but who abjured Islam, joined the Makkan opposition and gave out as reason for
his abandoning Islam that the Prophet used to dictate some expressions to him
but he would write something else instead, and when asked to correct the mistake
he would insist on not changing what he had written. So, he says, the Prophet
would permit him to write whatever he liked to write. It is made to appear that
this happened more than once.
3
Now, clearly this statement is that of a person who had turned hostile. On the
face of it, thus, it is not at all worthy of credence. From the text of the report it is
also clear that the person in question was an enemy in disguise who, by a fake
profession of Islam, had infiltrated the ranks of the Muslims with the object of
subverting Islam and the text of the revelations. In any case, common sense and
reason would never accept as true what is given out by the person; for no
reasonable individual, especially one who is supposed to be a shrewd and
calculated impostor, would ever allow any of his clerks or followers to write
whatever he liked to, and would then allow that text to be given out as the
revelation. The report clearly indicates it to be a false allegation and describes the
evil consequences that befell the calumniator. Margoliouth twists this false
1
Margoliouth, op.dt, 91.
2
Ibid.
3
Mu.rnad, III, 120-121.
106 THE QUR'AN AND TI-lE ORIENTALISTS
allegation of the calumniator as evidence of the falsity of the revelation.
Moreover, there is no reference in the report itself to the Prophet's having ever
artificially produced the "symptoms" which Margoliouth cites as marks of the
alleged trickery. Strangely enough, he finds no inference to be drawn from the
instance of thousands of intelligent and sensible persons who followed the
Prophet with rare devotion and dedication throughout their lives except that they
were all mere dupes to his trickery and imposture!
IV. MARGOLIOUTH'S ASSUMPTION ABOUT THE VISION OF GOD
The most glaring of Margoliouth's assumptions, and this is his most notable
addition to Muir's assumption, is his statement that from the Qur'an it appears to
be God Who Himself and "at a distance of rather less than two bow-shots"
delivered the revelation to the Prophet and that Jibril was substituted afterwards
as the conveyer of revelations. Though Margoliouth does not specifically cite it,
the allusion is clearly to the Qur'anic passage 53:4-10 (surat ai-Nqjm). Subsequent
writers, notably Richard Bell and W. M. Watt, have taken over from him this
particular assumption. Before pointing out how Margoliouth and the other
writers have misunderstood or misinterpreted the passage, it may be pointed out
that this assumption of Margoliouth's too is somewhat inconsistent with his
general thesis. He labours all through to show that the Prophet only imitated the
previous Prophets, that he derived his ideas and information from the Old and
New Testament, that his case was like that of Joseph Smith who unearthed the
Book of Mormon "under the guidance of the angels" and that in the New
Testament it is the angel Jibril who conveyed God's messages to His Prophets.
Having said all these Margoliouth suggests, allegedly on the authority of the
Qur'an, that the Prophet initially claimed to have received the revelation directly
from God. It is not explained why Mul;ammad (p.b.h.) should have made such
an unusual departure from the practice of all the other Prophets who received
revelations through the angel and whom he is said to have merely imitated, and
whether such a direct transaction with God, unseen and unobserved by anyone
else, and keeping the angel completely out of the scene for a long time, would be
the most appropriate method, as Margoliouth would have us believe the Prophet
was careful to adopt, to impress the supernatural origin of his message upon his
audience.
But let us consider the Qur'anic passage on the basis of which Margoliouth
advances his assumption. The passage runs as follows:
MUIR AND MARGOLIOUTH ON THE QUR'ANIC WAHY
L>_,All ...Js. (0) ..s y.. ..s J '11 r 01 (t) L>.,.JI ,y Lo J (i) L>Y. Lo J J.-" Lo
Jl ..s}.i(\ ) J.)f} .:r-"} y\j 0\.(; (".) J...l:.i J.) Js-\11 J (V) L>_,:....l.i ;;/ ('\)
..s} \.,. o
107
"(2) Your companion (i.e., the Prophet) has not gone astray nor has he acted foolishly. (3) Nor
does he speak out of (his) whims. (4) It is nothing but waf;y (a communication) communicated (to
him). (5) One very powerful taught him. (6) He possesses physical and mental robustness, and he
positioned himself (7) while he was in the highest horizon. (8) Then he approached and came
closer; (9) and was at a distance of two bow-lengths or even closer. (10) Thus did he communicate
to His (Allah's) servant what He communicated." (53:2-10)
This passage has to be understood in the context of the situation in which it
was revealed and also with reference to another Qur' anic passage, 81:19-27 (sura!
ai-Takwtr) which deals with the same theme. According to Muslim classical
scholars as well as many orientalists, this latter passage is earlier in the order of
revelation than 53:2-10.
1
Both the passages were revealed, however, in the
context of the unbelievers' refusal to believe that the Prophet had received any
revelation from Allah. They alleged that he had been under the influence of an
evil spirit or had gone off his head. Both the passages rebut that allegation. The
passage 81:19-27 runs as follows:
\... J (n) ..:r--f t cf _,..II ;;_; t1-_f Jr J J_,AJ -.;I(\".)
0fr"li.:.r.t (Yi) r->-J Jib L.. J o) Js- Jib L.. J t) ..IA.lJ (H)
.:r.JWl '11 r 01 V)
"(19) Verily this is a text (saying, delivered by an honourable messenger; (20) possessing
power and rank near the Lord of the Throne. (21) Obeyed there and trusted. (22) And your
companion (i.e. the Prophet) is not one possessed. (23) Surely he saw him (the honourable
messenger) in the clear horizon. (24) Nor does he withhold a knowledge of the unseen. (25) Nor is
it (the revelation) the saying of a devil, accursed. (26) Then whither do you go? (27) It is nothing
but a recital to all the worlds." (81:19-27).
The points common to both the passages may be noted. First, both describe
the Prophet's seeing an angel in the horizon. In 81:23, which is the earlier in the
order of revelation, this entity is clearly described as "an honourable messenger",
i.e., a messenger of Allah, an angel, and not "God" Himself. Second, though the
passage 53:2-10 does not specifically mention that the entity was a "messenger",
his description there is very much similar to that in 81:19-27. Thus, while in the
latter passage he is described as one possessing power (dht quwwah) and position
near the Lord of the Throne, in 53:2-10 he is described as very powerful ( shadtd
1
According to the Muslim classical scholars surah.r al-Takwir and al-Najm were respectively the 7th and the 23rd in the
order of revelation. Rodwell, Jeffery, Muir and Niildeke hold them to be, respectively, 32nd and 46th, 24th and 27th, 27th
and 43rd and 27th and 28th in the order of revelation.
al-quwwah) and possessing physical and mental robustness (dhU mirrah). Third,
both the passages rebut the allegations of the unbelievers and both speak of the
Prophet as "your companion" (.ra#bu-kum) because he was really one of Makkan
community and was thoroughly known to them. Fourth, both the passages
emphasize that the Prophet was not "one possessed" (81:22) nor had he strayed
from the right path and acted foolishly (52:2). Fifth, both passages say that what
the Prophet was giving out was a statement ( q a w ~ given to him by an honourable
messenger (81:19) and taught him by "one very powerful" (52:5). Sixth, both the
passages reiterate that it was a revelation given to the Prophet (53:4), not the
word of an evil spirit but a recital to all the worlds (81:25,27). The two passages
thus speak of the same subject, give the same reply to the objections of the
Makkan unbelievers and describe the entity seen in the horizon in similar phrases
and adjectives. Each of the passages is thus explanatory of and complementary to
the other. And since the earlier passage (81: 19-27) specifically refers to the entity
as a messenger, it cannot be assumed that the latter passage, 53:2-10, claimed it to
be God Himself Who had descended to deliver the text to the Prophet. The same
is true even if the order of revelation of the two passages is reversed; for; if the
Prophet had been so inconsistent as to speak of the conveyer of the text as Allah
in one piece of revelation and as an angel in another piece, he would have been
very badly harassed by the unbelievers who were only too ready to find fault with
him and to harass him.
Margoliouth's confusion may have arisen from his misunderstanding of the
statement at 53:10,ja 'awl;a 'ila 'abdihi ma 'awl;a. To understand the meaning of this
expression it is necessary to bear in mind three important things. First, the letter
fa with which the statement starts, has two senses - istiqbal!Jah, i.e., sequential,
meaning "then"; and tcifsfr!Jyah, i.e., explanatory, meaning "thus" or "so". The
second thing to note is the expression 'abdihi in the statement. It definitely means
His, i.e., Allah's servant, and may therefore be taken to refer either to the Prophet
or to the angel Jibril. And third, it is essential to remember that in Arabic a
pronoun, whether explicit or inherent in a verb, does not always relate to the
immediate antecedent, as in English, but may relate to a nominative or subject
understood from the context. Bearing these three things in mind, the meaning of
the 'qyah 53:10 may be understood. If the letter fa with which it starts is taken in
the sequential sense, the meaning of the statement would be: "Then he (the
angel-messenger) communicated to His Servant (i.e. the Prophet) what He (or he)
MUIR AND MARGOLIOUTH ON THE QUR'ANIC WAijY 109
communicated." If, on the other hand, the letter fa is taken in its explanatory
sense, then the meaning would be: "Thus or So (by means of the angel) He
(Allah) communicated to His servant what He communicated". It would be
manifestly wrong to disregard the internal evidences mentioned above, and also
the context and the relation of the passage to the other passage, 81:19-27, and
then, by fixing the eye on the expression 'abdihi to assume that the passage speaks
of God Himself appearing in the horizon and then descending to the Prophet to
deliver to him the text of the revelation!
Thus, Margoliouth's assumption that the Prophet had initially claimed that
God Himself had delivered to him the text of the revelation is wrong and
untenable. Despite its untenability, however, this assumption of his has been
taken over and reiterated by his successor orientalists, particularly by Bell and
Watt. Consequently, they have also reiterated Margoliouth's other suggestion that
Jibril was substituted as conveyer of the revelation at a subsequent stage.
Margoliouth's main thesis that Mul].ammad (p.b.h.) deliberately and on calculation
acted the part of a Prophet and was otherwise an impostor is no new thing. It is
essentially a repetition of the Medieval European approach to Islam and its
Prophet. Recent European scholarship is of course shy of making such a blatant
accusation against the Prophet; but when Watt, as would be seen presently,
speaks of the Prophet's "inducing" the symptoms of revelation, it is in effect an
echo not only of Margoliouth's view but, in fact, of that medieval European
approach. In another respect Margoliouth appears to have indicated a new line of
approach, that of having recourse to modern works on theosophy, philosophy or
mysticism to explain the phenomenon of Islamic revelation. Thus, while he uses
the work of Podmore on spiritualism to suggest that the Prophet, though known
to be honest, could nevertheless play trickery and be mystifying, Watt, as would
be seen presently, has recourse to the work of A. Poulain on mysticism to suggest
that waf(y was a sort of "intellectual locution" on the part of Mul)ammad (p.b.h.).
1
1
Infra, Chaps. VI and VII.
CHAPTERV
THE ORIENTALISTS ON THE QUR'ANIC WAI:IY:
II. THE VIEWS OF RICHARD BELL
I. SuMMARY OF BELL's AssuMPTIONS
Bell put forth his views mainly in a series of two articles published in two
consecutive issues of the Moslem World for 1934
1
In them he advanced the
following suggestions:
(a) That the traditions regarding the coming of wai!J are inventions of a later
age and are founded upon the Qur'anic passage 53:1-18.
(b) That before he "encountered" the "visions" in the above mentioned
passage the Prophet had been "speaking" in some manner but had not started
delivering or composing the Qur'an.
(c) That the term waljy does not mean verbal communication of the text of the
Qur'anbut "suggestions", "prompting" or "inspiration" to "compose" the Qur'an.
(d) That according to the passage 53:1-18 the Prophet claimed to have seen
Allah; but as he became better informed and also met with objections he
mystified and introduced modifying verses in it giving the impression of a
"spiritual vision".
(e) That as he subsequently became aware of the existence of angels he
reasserted in surah 81 ( ai-Takwfr) that he had seen the angel messenger on the
clear horizon; and
(f) That still more subsequently, at Madina, he introduced Jibril as the
conveyer of wai!J.
It is to be hoted that with the exception of the suggestions at (a) and (c) the
other suggestions are merely a repetition of Muir's and Margoliouth's views
discussed in the previous chapter. Thus the suggestion at (b), namely, that the
Prophet had been "speaking" in some manner before delivering the Qur'an is a
reiteration of what Muir says about the Prophet's pre-wa0' or pre-Qur'an
deliverances,
2
Similarly the suggestions at (d), (e) and (f) are an elaboration of
Margoliouth's assumptions that the Prophet initially claimed to have seen Allah
and that subsequently he modified this by saying that an angel had delivered to
him the text and that still more subsequently at Madina the angel Jibril was
.
1
RICHARD BELL, "Mohammed's call", Tbe Moslem World, January, 1934, pp. 13-19 and "Mohammed's visions", Ibid., April,
1934, pp. 145-154. The term "Moslem" has subsequently been modified into "Muslim" in the title of the journal.
2
Supra, pp. 94-97.
BELL'S VIEWS ABOUT THE QUR' ANIC W AIJY 111
introduced as the conveyer of waf.!y. Let us now consider the suggestions one by
one.
II. CONCERNING THE TRADITIONS ABOUT THE COMING OF WAI;:lY
Bell's reasons for discounting the traditions concerning the coming of wal;y are
four. (i) He says that 'A'ishah (r.a.), the original authority for the traditions, "was
not born at the time of the Call, and could at best have got the story" from the
Prophet himself and that much has subsequently "been attributed to her which
she probably never said. "
1
(ii) The story as it has come down to us "in the earliest
form" in Ibn Isbaq's/Ibn Hish:im's work makes 'A'ishah (r.a.) responsible only
for "the first part of it, viz., that the Messenger of Allah began by seeing true
visions in sleep; that they came to him like the dawn of the morning, and that he
began to love solitude. The rest of the story is given on quite a different, and far
less reliable isndd. "
2
(iii) The statement that taf;annuth (the solitary stay and
contemplation at I;Iir:i') was a pre-Islamic Quraysh practice, as mentioned in Ibn
Ishaq's work, is not correct. The "ascetic note in such a practice was entirely alien
to Mohammed's nature" and the "accompanying fasts" have no support in the
Qur':in. "Fasting was not introduced till the Madinan period, and then as an
imitation of Jewish practice."
3
(iv) The expression Ndmus, derived from the Greek
term nomos and meaning Jewish law, could not have been used by Waraqah ibn
Nawfal in his reported conversation with the Prophet; for the Qur'an does not
contain the expression, and, says Bell, as the Prophet was fond of "borrowing
religious technical terms it was to be expected that, if he had known this word he
would have used it, especially ifWaraqa had used it at such a momentous point in
his life." Hence the "whole story is the invention of a later age. "
4
Clearly, Bell seeks to cast doubt on the tradition about the coming of wal{y as
given even in Ibn Ish:iq's work with a view to proving that the account of the
angel Jibril's coming with the wal;y to the Prophet is not reliable. His main
hypothesis (i. e. at iv) that the term Ndmus could not have been used by Waraqah
and the Prophet at that time and that the "whole story is an invention of a later
age" calls for a substantiation of three other hypotheses before it could be
adduced as a valid argument. These hypotheses are : (a) that the Prophet himself
composed the Qur'an; (b) that he was fond of borrowing foreign religious
technical terms and (c) that all unfamiliar terms (ghard'ib) occurring in the badfth
1
The Mo.rlem World, January, 1934, p. 14.
2
Ibid.
' Ibid., 16.
4
Ibid.
literature should invariably be found in the Qur':in. Needless to say, none of these
hypotheses is an established fact. Particularly the crux of the whole
argumentation, that the Prophet himself composed the Qur':in, is the very point
at issue and it should not therefore be first assumed as a fact and then that should
not be made a point to prove that very fact.
Bell here seems merely to depend upon A. Jeffery's suggestion.
1
In fact this
very argument about Namus rebounds on Bell's own argument and destroys his
thesis that the particular traditions about the coming of wab to the Prophet are
inventions of a later age. If, as Bell says, the word Namus is of Greek origin
meaning Jewish law and if the Prophet (or any one else) had fabricated the story
when the alleged initial claim of the Prophet's having seen Allah had been
allegedly modified and consequently the angel had been introduced as the
conveyer of waby, he would definitely have used the term angel or Jibril in the
story instead of the admittedly unfamiliar and, according to the meaning
suggested, rather incongruous expression Namus in it. Thus, according to Bell's
own reasoning, the word Namus, since it is used in the tradition, could not, even if
Greek in origin, have meant Jewish law; for it is well-known that words of foreign
origin change meanings in the process of adoption and naturalization in another
language. The very fact of the use of the word in the tradition in question as an
expression ofWaraqah's is a decisive evidence of the genuineness of the account.
As regards Bell's argument at (i), namely, that 'A'ishah (r.a.) received the
account from the Prophet, it is of course true that she did so. It is also likely that
something might have been subsequently given out in her name which she
probably had never said. But this probability only calls for a more careful
examination of the isnad rather than for treating all traditions emanating from her
as suspect. Bell is also wrong in seeking to discredit the story on the ground that
t a ~ a n n u t h was not a pre-Islamic Quraysh practice as given out in the version of
the report given in Ibn Ish:iq's work, nor was fasting, which is said to have
accompanied it, introduced till at Madina. Now, without discussing whether
fasting was not known in Pre-Islamic Arabia or whether it was introduced in
imitation of the Jews, it may be pointed out that 'A'ishah's (r.a.) report about
tabannuth, as given in Bukhdri, does neither mention that it was a pre-Islamic
Quraysh practice nor does it make any allusion to fasting being a necessary part
of it. It is also to be noted that the reporters in Ibn Isl;l:iq's work do not claim to
1
A. JEFFERY, Tbe Fotign V (){;abu!ary of tbe Koran, Baroda, 1938. Bell must have seen the work before its publication, as he
had seen Jeffery's other work before its publication.
BELL'S VIEWS ABOUT THE QUR'ANIC WAljY 113
have received their account from her. Thus Bell's argument here suffers from a
dual methodological fault. He seeks to discredit her account in general on the
basis of statements that are nowhere claimed to have been made by her; and he
bases his conclusion on the statements that he himself acknowledges to have
come down on a "far less reliable isnad.".
Again, Bell seems to admit the genuineness of the very first part of 'A'ishah's
(r.a.) report as reproduced in Ibn Ishaq's work because, according to Bell, it is
found here "in the earliest form". It says, as Bell puts it, "that the Messenger of
Allah began by seeing true visions in his sleep; that came to him like the dawn of
the morning, and that he began to love solitude."
1
Bell emphasizes that this
earliest version does not make her responsible for anything more than that. It is
to be noted that Bell is not quite correct in translating the expression al-ruya
al-fadiqah here as "true visions". Its correct meaning is "True dreams", for ruya in
sleep means dreams, not visions. He is also not quite right in translating the
expression ( ~ 1 JlA5' . . . : : . . > ~ \ . > . . ja'at kafalaq al-[ubl;) as "they came like the dawn of the
morning". Its correct sense is "they came true like the dawn of the morning". Be
that as it may, two things need to be specially noted about this statement. First, it
is obviously part of the story, not the whole of it; for 'A'ishah (r.a.) could not
have stopped abruptly without indicating what the Prophet did or what happened
to him after he had began to love solitude. She must have said something in
continuation and completion of the story. Second, whatever the nature of the
ruya in sleep, there is no hint here at the appearance of any entity before the
Prophet at that stage. Nor does Bell seem to take what he translates as "visions"
to be the ones which he assumes are "recounted" in the Qur'anic passage 53:1-18;
for if it was a question of only a "vision" in sleep, i.e., dream, no one would have
bothered to controvert or discredit it, for anyone can experience any sort of
unusual dream in sleep. Clearly the "vision" which is supposed to have caused the
controversy leading to its supposed clarification in the passage 53:1-18 must have
been different from the dreams (visions) in sleep and it must have taken place
before its alleged "recounting" in the above mentioned passage. The question that
naturally arises is: How and when did the Prophet have that experience which he
gave out to the people and which elicited criticisms, thereby making it necessary
for him to "recount" and clarify it in the passage in question. Bell does not of
course ask himself this question; but the part of 'A'ishah's (r.a.) report quoted in
I M.W, 1934, p. 14.
Ibn Isl;laq's work and Bell's own theory both indicate that something remains to
be said in completion of the story. That something is in fact related in A'ishah's
(r.a.) report which is given in full and correctly in Bukhdrt but it is given in Ibn
Ishaq's work in a different and less reliable form, by a different group of narrators
who have at least the honesty of not citing 'A'ishah (r.a.) as the authority for their
version of the account.
While rejecting the story about tabannuth and the Prophet's conversation with
Waraqah, Bell does not elsewhere rule out the possibility of the Prophet's contact
with the latter and such other people with a knowledge of Christianity and its
scripture. Indeed, such contacts are implicit throughout Bell's other thesis, The
Origin of Islam in its Christian Environment.
1
Be that as it may, even in the present
instance he implies that the Prophet had given out his initial experience at the
outset of his career; for, if he had not, there would have been no need for
"recounting" it. Therefore the question arises: To whom could the Prophet have
first disclosed his experience, if not to such persons as his wife Khadijah (r.a.) and
their relative Waraqah who, by all accounts, were the most likely ones to listen to
him with sympathy and attention? Taf.Jannuth, the experience at Hira' and the
subsequent conversation with Waraqah, which are the two most important items
in 'A'ishah's (r.a.) report, thus appear to be just in the of things and are
moreover in accord with Bell's own lines of argument.
III. THE ASSUMPTION OF PRE-QUR' AN DELIVERANCES
As regards the second assumption that prior to his recounting the "visions" in
the passage 53:1-18 the Prophet had been "speaking" in "some manner" but had
not started delivering or "composing" the Qur'an , Bell advances three
arguments. (i) The word yantiqu in the passage ('qyah 3) "is a general one and
is not elsewhere associated with the recitation of the Qur'an". (ii) The word
"Qur'an" is derived from the Syriac qerydnd. Hence the idea of supplying a Qur'an
"was suggested by the scripture readings of the Christian Church". Therefore the
Prophet "had gathered some sort of a congregation before he set about supplying
them with "readings". (iii) The word 'awbd used in 'qyah 4 of the passage does not
"necessarily imply the communication of the words of the Qur'an."
2
Also, the
various uses of the word waf!y in the Qur'an show that it means "suggestion",
"prompting" or "inspiration".
3
1
London, 1926.
2
M. W., 1934, p. 146.
BEll'S VIEWS ABOUT 11-IE QUR'ANIC W AlfY 115
Now, the last argument (i. e. iii) relates mainly to the third of Bell's
assumptions mentioned above, namely, the nature of wa!!J in the Qur'an. Hence
this argument will be dealt with along with his assumptions about wab.J in general
at the end of this chapter. Before that his other arguments and assumptions are
discussed one by one.
As regards Bell's argument (i), namely, that initially the Prophet had been only
"speaking" in some manner and not delivering the Qur'an and that he
commenced delivering the Qur'an only when he gathered a sort of a
congregation, it is simply a reiteration of Muir's assumption noticed earlier. The
faults in that assumption have already been noted.
2
So far as Bell's addition to the
argument in this connection is concerned, it may be noted that he puts a very
narrow and rather misleading construction on the expression yanfiqu occurring in
53:3, divorcing the word from the whole context of the passage and the situation
in which it was given out. The unmistakable purport of the passage is to
contradict the unbelievers' objection to the effect that what the Prophet had been
giving out to them was not Allah's words but the Prophet's own. In reply to that
objection it is stated that the Prophet "does not speak out of his own whim; it is
nothing but a divine .communication (wab.J) delivered (to him)." The expression
here is ma yan(iqu (he does not speak), not simply yan(iqu (he speaks). It is thus just
the appropriate phrase in that context. It is not used simply in the general sense
of "speaking", as Bell would have us believe, and it does not imply that the
Prophet had been "only speaking in some manner". It implies that the Prophet
had been claiming his deliverances to be Allah's communications, that the
unbelievers' were objecting to that claim and that the passage therefore rebuts
that objection by categorically asserting that the Prophet did not speak out of his
own mind and imagination - it was no statement of his own, born out of his
whims, but wab.J (divine communication) delivered to him. Bell totally
misconstrues the expression divorcing it from the context of the passage. If the
Prophet had not claimed that what he was giving out was Allah's words, the
Qur'an, there would have been no reason for the unbelievers' raising any
objection to his claim and therefore no need for a rejoinder to that objection, as
the passage in question admittedly is.
Bell is somewhat confusing and self-contradictory in his statement in this
connection. He says with regard to the supposedly pre-Qur'an deliverances that
I Ibid., 147, 148.
2
Supra, pp. 94-97.
waf!y does not mean the verbal communication of the text of a revelation, but it
means a 'suggestion', 'prompting' or 'inspiration' coming into a person's mind
from outside himself. "
1
He further says that the Prophet had, before the delivery
of the passage in question, been only speaking "by waf;y, by suggestion from a
heavenly person" whom he had seen.
2
Obviously Bell makes these statements to
avoid the implication of the assertion in the passage that what the Prophet was
giving out was not his speech but wal;y delivered to him. Bell is thus forced to
give an interpretation of the term waf;y in relation to what he calls pre-Qur'an
deliverances. But this interpretation of Bell's in effect eliminates the distinction
between what is called the pre-Qur'an deliverances and the deliverances
constituting the Qur'an. Bell is thus both confusing and self-contradictory. He
himself in effect nullifies his assumption of pre-Qur'an deliverances by the
Prophet.
As regards Bell's other assumption that the Prophet got the idea of delivering a
Qur'an (reading) from the scripture readings in the Christian church and that he
thought of producing such "readings" only when he had already gathered a sort
of a congregation round him, it is simply an absurd proposition inspired
obviously by the similarly absurd assumption of Muir's that by his pre-waf;y or
pre-Qur'an utterances the Prophet had already gathered a band of followers when
he thought of standing forth as a Prophet and speaking in the name of God.
3
And
the same objections apply in Bell's case as well. It is simply unreasonable to think
that any group of persons would become the Prophet's followers unless they were
convinced of the truth of his position as a divinely commissioned teacher and of
his utterances in relation to his teachings as divine communications. Moreover, if
the Prophet got the idea of congregational "readings" from the scripture readings
in the Christian church, it does not necessarily follow that he waited till he
gathered a band round him. Intelligent and careful as he was by all accounts, he
would have started his mission by having a set of readings ready at hand!
Lastly, Bell's statement that prior to his "recounting" of the "vision" in the
passage 53:1-18 the Prophet had been only speaking in some manner implies that
the passage 53:1-18 is the earliest and the first passage that was revealed of the
Qur'an. That proposition, however, is simply wrong. It is neither supported by
the sources, in spite of differences in the reports regarding the order of
I M.W, 1934, P 148.
2
Ibid.
' Supra, pp. 94-97.
BELL'S VIEWS ABOUT THE QUR'ANIC WAijY 117
revelations, nor is it admitted by the orientalists themselves. Even Bell does not
appear to strictly hold that view; and he in effect contradicts himself a little earlier
when he says: "If Mohammed was commissioned to produce a Koran (recitation),
then the command 'iqra' (recite) would naturally come first. This argument may
even now appeal to a critical mind, and indeed most European scholars have
accepted the passage as the earliest. "
1
Thus does Bell in effect say that before the
delivery of the passage 53:1-18 the 'iqra'passage of the Qur'an had been revealed.
Mul).ammad (p.b.h.) had thus not just been speaking in some manner, but
delivering the Qur'an before the so-called "recounting" of the "vision" in 53:1-18.
IV. BELL
1
S ASSUMPTION ABOUT THE VISION OF GOD
As regards Bell's assumption that in the passage 53:1-18 (sural al-Nqjm) the
Prophet initially claimed to have seen Allah, it is an elaboration of Margoliouth's
assumption and is based totally upon a wrong interpretation of the passage. The
meaning and implication of the passage have been noted earlier.
2
Here Bell's
arguments and observations are taken into consideration.
Bell translates 'C!Jah 4 of the passage ( 'allamahu shadfd al-quwa) as: "There taught
him (or it) one strong in power." The plain translation of the 'qyah should be:
"One strong in power taught him." There is nothing in the 'qyah to warrant the
insertion of the word "there" at the beginning of the sentence; for the description
of what he calls the "vision" come after two more 'qyahs, i.e., in 'qyahs 7-9. Bell's
main argument, however, centres round 'qyah 10 of the passage which runs as: fa
'awpa 'ila 'abdihi ma 'awpa. He rejects what he calls the Muslim commentators' view
that the subject of the verb 'awhd is Jibril while the pronoun in 'abdihi is Allah,
saying that it is an unnatural use of language. He admits that Allah is indeed the
pronoun in 'abdihi and then says that "this involves that Allah is also the subject
of the verb and in fact is being spoken of all through."
3
It needs only to be pointed out here that unlike in English, in Arabic pronouns
do not always relate to the immediate antecedent, nor is the same subject
assumed in the cases of all the verbs in a single sentence. Instances of such use of
pronouns are abundant even in modern Arabic. Even in English this particular
grammatical rule is not always strictly observed and the meaning of an expression
can be properly understood only with reference to the context and with a
I M.W, 1934, p.17.
2
Supra, 106-110.
' M. W, 1034, 148-149.
background knowledge of the facts.
1
So far as Arabic is concerned, however,
there would be no unnatural use of language if there is one pronoun for the verb
'awf;d in the '4Jah in question and another pronoun for the expression 'abdihi in it.
There are many instances in the Qur'an of such use of different implied pronouns
in different verbs in a single sentence.
In fact the nature of the entity spoken of should be understood primarily on
the basis of its description in '4Jahs 5-9, and not so much on the basis of '4Jah 10
alone. It is described in '4Jahs 5-6 as "one strong in power" and "endowed with
wisdom (or mental and physical fitness)". Bell himself acknowledges that the
term mirrah in 'qyah 6 is taken to mean fitness either of figure or of intellect.
2
These adjectives are clearly relative in nature and can by no stretch of the
imagination be taken as attributes of Allah. Nowhere in the Qur'an is God
described in such terms and by such attributes. On the other hand, angels are
described, among others, by the adjective shadfd and its plural shiddd.
3
Thus, even
if the traditions on the subject are not brought in to bear on the passage, its
internal evidence decisively militates against any assumption that the entity
spoken of is Allah. On the contrary, keeping the descriptive phrases in mind and
relating this description to '4Jah 18 of the same surah which speaks of what is seen
as "one of the greatest signs of his Lord", and not the Lord Himself, the
unavoidable meaning is that the entity spoken of is the angel. This is further clear
from the Qur'anic passage 81:19-27 which should be taken into consideration in
this connection and which speaks of the entity as a "noble messenger", besides
describing him as one "possessing power" (dht quwwah). Bell of course suggests
that '4Jah 18 of sural ai-Nqjm and the passage 81:19-27, and the angel Jibril, are all
subsequent introductions. But the grounds on which these assumptions are made,
as will be seen presently, are all untenable.
Bell seeks to support his assumption by suggesting that the Prophet, having
claimed that he had seen Allah, subsequently realized the mistake and also faced
objections to it. As evidence of this supposed "uneasiness" and "objections" Bell
cites 17:60[62] which reads, in Bell's translation: "We appointed the vision which
We showed thee simply as a test for the people."Bell argues that this '4Jah refers
1
See for instance this statement: "Perhaps his [Al-Zubayr's] relationship to Khadijah through his father and to
Muhammad through his mother made conversion easy." (Watt, M. atM., 92) One not knowing the facts might take the
last "his" in the sentence to refer to the immediate antecedent, M u ~ a m m a d (p.b.h.), and the "mother" spoken of to be his
rather than Al-Zubayr's, but it is the latter which is meant here.
2
M. W, 1934, p. 145, n.4.
3
Q. 66:6 and 72:8.
BELL'S VIEWS ABOUT THE QUR'ANIC W AI;fY 119
not to isra' and mi'rqj alluded to in 17:1, as the Muslim commentators hold, but to
the "vision" narrated in surat ai-Nqjm; for, according to him, 17:1 does not speak
of any "vision".
1
This argument of Bell's is, however, not at all tenable; for 17:1
does speak of a vision and also qualifies it as a vision of some of the "signs" of
Allah - li nurfyahu min 'qyatina- "in order that We might show him some of Our
signs". Thus, the very argument on which Bell builds up his assumption of
"uneasiness" and "objections" about the "vision" in surat ai-Nqjm is wrong.
Proceeding on the basis of these two faulty assumptions, namely, that in sura!
ai-Nqjm the Prophet first claimed to have seen Allah and that there was
"uneasiness" and "objections" about that claim, Bell suggests that the Prophet
therefore subsequently modified his position; and this modification is noticeable
in 'qyahs 11-18 of the surah. Bell translates its 'qyah 11 - ma kadhaba alfu 'ad ma ra 'a -
as: "The heart did not falsify what it saw", and says that the Prophet thus
attempted to give the impression of a "spiritual appearance"
2

Here again Bell makes a mistake about pronouns. The pronoun implicit in the
verb ma ra'a is the Prophet, not "it", i.e., the heart; for the simple reason that it
does not make sense to say that the heart did not falsify, i.e., invent the vision, if
the intention was to stress that it was only a mental vision. On the contrary, since
the "vision" was very much corporeal it was emphasized that the heart did not
"falsify" it, i.e., it was no mistaken impression, no mere imagination, no
hallucination on his part about what he saw. Far from mystifying the "vision", the
statement here only emphasizes the reality of the experience. The pronoun in ma
ra'a is thus the Prophet. That the experience was one of physical sight is
indicated again in 'qyah 13 which speaks of its happening at another "descent"
and, further, in 'qyah 17 which specifically mentions ba[ar, i.e., eye, as the
instrument of the sight. Had the intention been to mystify and modify, neither the
expression "another descent" nor ba[ar would have been mentioned in
connection with the so-called modifying statements. The alleged modification is
totally groundless and the 'qyahs 13, 17, and 18 do not at all modify anything.
Moreover, as already pointed out, the passage 53:1-18 should be interpreted in
connection with 81:19-27 (surat ai-Takwtr) which speaks of an "honourable
messenger", i.e., an angel, as the conveyer of wary. Bell suggests that this passage
should not be allowed to influence the interpretation of 53:1-18. His reasons for
this suggestion are: (a) that it is not until the Madinan period that Jibril is
I M.W,l934,p.l51.
2
Ibid.
mentioned in this connection and (b) that when the Makkan unbelievers raised
the objection, in Bell's words, "that an angel should have been sent as messenger
or that at least an angel should have been conjoined with him", the Prophet's
reply was "not that an angel was actually conveying the message to him, but
simply that all former messengers had been men, xvi:45, or that if an angel had
been sent, that would have been the end of the matter, and there would have
been no respite, vi:8."
1
Bell further states that the "whole new world" of angels
"opened up" to the Prophet much subsequently- "note the phrase in xxv:l, 'He
addeth in the creation what He pleaseth' as indicating that the creatures there
spoken of were new to Muhammad."
2
Thus arguing, Bell concludes that "the
angel messenger of surah lxxxi must be later than the description of the visions in
surah liii, and should not be allowed to influence its interpretation. "
3
Now, Bell is very much wrong in all his assumptions here, namely, (a) that the
Prophet became aware of the existence of angels at a later date than his utterance
of sura! ai-Nqjm; (b) the assumption about the nature of the Makkan unbelievers'
demand for an angel messenger and (c) the assumption that Jibril was mentioned
as conveyer of wal;y only at Madina.
As regards the first assumption it is decisively disproved by the very argument
which Bell himself adduces to support his thesis. The fact that the Makkans asked
for an angel messenger or an angel coadjutor with the Prophet shows that the
Makkan unbelievers, not to speak of the Prophet himself, were very much aware
of the existence of angels. In fact, at three places in sura! ai-Nqjm itself the
unbelievers' misconception about angels are corrected. Thus 'qyah 21 points out
their mistake in thinking that angels are Allah's daughters.
4
'Ayah 26 says that
there are indeed many angels in the heaven but their intercession would be of no
avail to anyone except with Allah's leave and pleasure;
5
and 'qyah 27 states that
"those who believe not in the hereafter name the angels with female names.
6
There are a large number of early Makkan passages in the Qur'an showing that
knowledge about the existence of angels had been fairly common in Arabia,
particularly at Makka, since pre-Islamic times.
7
Hence, nothing could be farther
I M.W,1934,p.149.
2
Ibid., 154.
' Ibid., p.150.
4
The text runs thus: ._;;'-! .J ) .? .i.JI ~ ~
5
The text runs thus: ~ .r.J ,!..!., .:r-J.JJI . ; , ; ~ .;,! .., ~ 'JI "'-'('"Pl.<.> c.f'" 'J "-'')L.....JI J ..!.lJ.. ~ r5")
' The text runs thus: ._;;'-!1 ..,..._, .S:."JW1 0 _,...-,1 i _,...':It; 0 r y. 'J .:r..i.ll 01
7
See for instance Q. 69:17; 70:4; 74:31; 89:22 and 97:4 out of some fifty such passages.
BELL'S VIEWS ABOUT THE QUR'ANIC WAI;IY 121
from the truth and more misleading than the assertion that the existence of angels
dawned on Muhammad (p.b.h.) at a later stage of his career.
Similarly Bell misconstrues the passages 16:45 and 6:8 which relate to the
unbelievers' demand for an angel to be sent as messenger to them and the replies
given to that demand. It should be noted that these two are not the only passages
in the Qur'an dealing with the matter. There are at least ten more such passages
relating to it.
1
These passages do in no way suggest that the Prophet was avoiding
the question whether there were angels or not, nor whether an angel had brought
to him Allah's word. A cursory glance at these passages would make it
unmistakably clear that the unbelievers' demand arose out of a two-fold attitude
on their part. They refused to believe that a human being like themselves could
have been a messenger of Allah. They also sought to discredit the Prophet by
saying in effect that if indeed an angel had delivered Allah's word to him, why not
an angel instead was sent to them as His messenger or at least as a co-warner with
him. It may also be noted that the Makkan unbelievers could not by themselves
have conceived the idea of an angel messenger being sent to them; for , hitherto
they only imagined that angels were Allah's daughters and that their primary
function, as Allah's favoured ones, was to intercede with Him on behalf of
human beings. The idea that an angel could be sent as Allah's messenger
therefore appears to have dawned on them only when the Prophet had made the
claim that an angel had actually delivered to him Allah's words. At any rate, their
demand was clearly a counter-claim arising out of what the Prophet had asserted.
The nature of the unbelievers' objection and challenge may be gleaned from
15:6-7 (surat ai-If.ijr) and 25:7 (surat ai-Furqdn). They run respectively as follows:
.:r ..:-S 01 t.:,;G t.. _,J . 0 p:...J -!.11 _? lll J; <,.>lll 4-!l l_,lt:t J
"And they say: '0 the one on whom the text has been sent down! Truly you are mad. Why not
bring to us the angels, if you are of the truthful?" (15:6-7)
I.1-..L ..._. 0 .N ..!)..L. ,YI J;! _,J Jlr" ty1 .j J iw.JI j>. )I 1-4J \.. l_,lt:t J
"And they say: 'What sort of a messenger is this, who eats food and walks in the markets? Why has
not an angel been sent down to him to be a warner along with him?" (25:7)
While the second passage shows that the unbelievers could not persuade
themselves that a human being could be Allah's messenger, the first passage
illustrates the retorting nature of their demand. The form of the unbelievers'
address in the first passage, "0 the one on whom the text has been sent down", is
very significant. It in no way suggests that they believed in it. It is only a taunting
1
See for instance Q. 6:111; 6:158; 15:7-8; 16:33; 17:95; 23:24; 25:7; 25:21-22; 41:14; 43:53.
repetltlon of what they were told, namely, that Allah's word had been "sent
down" to him.
1
The phrase ntfijila (has been sent down) implies that some
intermediary had been mentioned as the conveyer of the text. This is further clear
from the succeeding 'qyah 15:7 which demands of the Prophet to produce the
angels if he was "truthful", that is, if he had spoken the truth in stating that an
angel had delivered to him the divine text. The form of the Prophet's claim is
discernible from the nature of the retort itself. Surely the unbelievers could not
have asked for the angels to be produced before them if the Prophet had stated
to them that he had received the text directly from Allah. Thus the very question
which Bell raises and the Qur'anic passages relating to them decisively disprove
both the assumptions that the Prophet had initially claimed to have received the
text directly from Allah and that he became aware of the existence of angels only
at a subsequent stage of his career.
Again, while noticing two of the replies given to the unbelievers' demand, Bell
does not mention the other very pertinent reply stated in the 'qyah immediately
following the one he cites, namely, 6:9. This 'qyah points out that were an angel
sent to them he would still have been sent in the form of a human being and in
that case they would have been in no less confusion. The folly in their demand is
further pointed out in 17:95 where it is stated that had the earth been inhabited
by angels walking about there in peace and quietness, certainly an angel would
have been sent as a messenger. In all these passages the objection which is being
combated is not whether angels did exist or not but, if an angel did really deliver
Allah's word to Muhammad (p.b.h.), why did one not physically appear before
them as Allah's messenger or at least as co-messenger with him? In other words,
why did MuQ.ammad (p.b.h.) not ask the angel to come up to vouchsafe for him
before his people?
Thus, the suggestion that the Prophet had initially claimed to have seen Allah
because he was unaware of the existence of angels at that stage of his career and
because the passage 53:1-18 contains indications of such a "vision" and its
subsequent "modifications" is totally unwarranted and untenable. Before leaving
this particular assumption, however, one more item in Bell's argument may be
noted. While maintaining that the traditions regarding the coming of wal;y are
later inventions Bell at the same time does not refrain from invoking J abir ibn
'Abd Allah's report on the subject given in Bukhdrl- to support his assumption.
1
See also Q. 38:8 which says: """.J'.? .i.JI ._,!; J)! - "What! has the recit been sent down to him of all of us?"
2
Bukhdri, nos. 4992-4995.
BELL'S VIEWS ABOUT TI-IE QUR' ANIC W AijY
123
He says that J abir's report implies "that the vision was one of Allah", adding that
as it is "contrary to orthodox sentiment", it "must have come into existence
before orthodox tradition was fixed. "
1
Bell says so on the basis of the expression:
Fa- 'idhii huwa jdlis 'ala kurs!J occurring in the report. He translates this expression
as : "and there He was sitting upon the Throne" and argues that the "throne" is
"appropriate" to Allah.
2
Now, it needs to be pointed out only that the word kurs!J is in the indefinite
form in the report in question, meaning "a chair", and not in the definite form
meaning "the Throne", as Bell mistranslates it. There is thus no question of its
being exclusively "appropriate" to Allah. It may further be noted that in two of
the versions of the same report in Bukhdrt (i.e. nos. 4994 and 4995) it is
specifically mentioned that the entity seen was "the very angel who had come to
me at I;Iira"' (Fa 'idhd al-malak alladi jd'ani bi-I;Iird). Bell is of course aware of this
fact; but he attempts to explain it away by saying that Jibril was imported into the
story "fairly early."
3
This is an unwarranted statement. He does not even explain
what he means by "fairly early". Does he mean to say that it had happened before
this specific version of Jabir's report came into existence? But even that would
not resolve all the difficulty; for Jabir was an'anfdri (helper, d. 74 H.) and came
into contact with the Prophet after his migration to Madina. Jabir also specifically
states that he received his information from the Prophet himself. Now, as Bell
says that the Prophet had modified his initial account of the "vision" in view of
the objections to it, which obviously took place at Makka, he could not have
given an impression of having seen Allah to Jabir after having migrated to
Madina. In fact none of the versions of Jabir's report implies that the "vision" was
one of Allah. Also Bell's statements that the so-called "orthodox tradition" had
been formed after Jabir's report had come into existence and that Jibril was
introduced "fairly early" in the story are somewhat self-contradictory and
confusing; for, according to Bell's own assumption the Prophet had supposedly
modified his position before the migration. Hence there was no question of the
so-called "orthodox tradition" having been formed subsequently to the coming
into existence of J abir's account. All the four forms of J abir's report, taken
together, clearly show that the entity seen was an angel, Jibril, not Allah.
I M.W., 1934, 17-18.
2
Ibid
' Ibid 18.
V. THE ASSUMPTION ABOUT J IBRIL
Bell's fifth assumption, namely, that the passage 81:19-27 which speaks of a
"noble messenger" as the conveyer of wal;y was given out by the Prophet at a later
stage of his career and therefore it should not be allowed to influence the
interpretation of 53:1-18, has already been shown to be wrong; for the two props
on which this assumption is made to stand, namely, that the Prophet was not
initially aware of the existence of angels and that he avoided telling the
unbelievers that an angel had delivered to him Allah's words are totally wrong.
The passage 81:19-27 should therefore be taken into consideration in interpreting
the passage 53:1-18.
This brings us to the last item in the series of Bell's assumptions, namely, that
Jibril was introduced as the conveyer of wa(Jy only at Madina. Now, it has been
seen:
(1) that angels had been known to the Prophet and his contemporaries at
Makka at least since the beginning of his mission;
(2) that they were spoken of as messengers between Allah and His Prophets;
(3) that it was specifically stated at Makka that a "noble messenger" had
brought the divine text to the Prophet;
( 4) that it was because of this claim that the Makkan unbelievers came forward
with the counter-claim that an angel should have been sent as a messenger or
joined as co-messenger with Muhammad (p.b.h.);
(5) that the traditions relating to the coming of waby and specifically
mentioningJibril as its conveyer are not later fabrications, as Bell supposes; and
(6) that even the Christians at Makka and elsewhere in Arabia believed and
knew that Jibril was the angel who conveyed Allah's revelation to His Prophets.
In view of all these proven facts it is just not reasonable to suppose that Jibril
came to be known to the Prophet only after he had come over to Madina.
True, Jibril is mentioned by that very name only three times in the Qur'an and
all these are Madinan passages, namely, 2:97, 2:98 and 66:4. Of these, it is only in
2:97 where that angel is spoken of as the conveyer of wa(Jy. The wording of the
passage clearly shows that it is a reply to objections raised about Jibril in some
quarters and that some talk had already been going on before this 'qyah was given
out. In fact, all the reports regarding the occasion of revelation of this passage
agree in stating that when the Jews at Madina came to know that the Prophet
claimed that the angel Jibril brought revelations to him they expressed their
BELL'S VIEWS ABOUT THE QUR'ANIC WAJ;IY 125
antipathy towards that angel and said that had the Prophet said that the angel
Mikhael was the conveyer of wa!!J they would have followed him (the Prophet).
Thereupon this passage was revealed in reply to their objection.
1
The passage
itself and its context as known from the reports do not in any way indicate that
Jibril was being spoken of here for the first time as the conveyer of revelations.
Moreover, the fact that Jibril is spoken of by that very name in the Madinan
passages only does not mean that there is no reference to him in the Makkan
surahs. In fact, the expression rasul karim (a noble messenger) in 81:19 and shadid
al-quwa (one strong in power) in 53:3 are taken by all commentators to mean the
angel Jibril. It would even seem that the expression shadid al-quwa and the term
Jibril are coterminous; for, according to one authority, Jibril is a compound word
made up of Jabr and I ~ meaning a "brave one of God" or "servant of God". Jabr
in Hebrew is Geber which means "a servant", and II means "the mighty", "the
powerful".
2
Also the expression R U ~ a/Quds (the spirit ofholiness)
3
in 16:102 and
a i - R U ~ ai-'Amfn (the trustworthy spirit) in 26:102 are unanimously taken by the
commentators to refer to Jibril. It may also be noted that the term Namus
occurring in the tradition means the trusted or the confidential angel.
4
Thus, both
the Qur'an and the traditions, which should not be kept out of consideration,
show that Jibril was mentioned as conveyer of waby from the very beginning of
the Prophet's mission.
VI. BELL'S CONCEPT OF WAI;fY
This brings us to Bell's assumptions about the nature and implications of
wa!!J. He points out some of the various senses in which the term waby and its
derivatives are used in the Qur'an and on that basis asserts that the general
meaning of the word is "suggestion", "prompting" or "inspiration". He then cites
some of the instances of waby where Allah gave directive to His Prophets to do
some particular things, such as to Nub. to build the ark, to Musa to set out with
his people by night and to strike the rock with his staff and to MuQ.ammad
(p.b.h.) to follow the religion of Ibrahim. On the basis of such instances Bell
concludes that waf;y means God's suggestions or promptings to His Prophets "for
. lli f d "
5
a pracuca ne o con uct.
1
See for instance AI-'fabari, Tajjlr, II, 36 and Ibn Kathir, Tajfir, I, 185-191.
2
William Geseneus, Hebrrw English Lexicon, cited in Malik Ghulam Farid, The Holy Qurdan English Tran.rlation and
Commentary, Rabwah (Pakistan), 1969, p. 46, n.123.
' Not "Holy Spirit", for the construction is murfd/mucfdf 'ilaybi, not ,rifat-mmv!iif
See the term in the Usan a!-'Arab.
Now, before taking up the meaning of waf?y in general and of Qur'anic wapy in
particular, some general faults in Bell's analysis may be pointed out. To begin
with, when he argues that wa!?J in general and of Qur'anic wapy in particular, some
general faults in Bell's analysis may be pointed out. To begin with, when he argues
that wapy means suggestions for a practical line of conduct, Bell does not go the
whole way and does not explain how the suggestion or prompting, as he prefers
to call it, could have been communicated to the Prophet. Also, if he had not been
too inclined to use the terms "suggestions" and "prompting" he would have easily
seen that the instances he cites are clearly God's "commands" and directives to
His Prophets, and not merely suggestions. These commands and directives for
the practical conduct, it may be pointed out, constitute God's words. The
command 'iqra', which Bell admits to be the earliest passage of the Qur'an, is
God's word.
Bell seems to acknowledge this fact when he says that the "practical
suggestions are indeed often formulated in direct speech" and that there are
"cases in which the formula has reference to doctrine rather than to conduct."
2
Yet, he insists that these formulations are "always quite short, the sort of phrase ...
which might flash into a person's mind after a consideration of a question, as the
summing up of the matter. "
3
One may only remark here that if in the ultimate
analysis wapy means "the sort of phrase" which flashes into one's mind after
consideration of a question as the decision and summing up of the matter, then
there is no need for importing God or any external being into the scene and no
sense in adding, as Bell does a few lines further on, that wal!J means "suggestion",
"prompting" or "inspiration" which comes into a person's mind apparently from
outside himself.
4
The fact is that waqy, in its technical sense, does not mean
suggestion, prompting or inspiration, nor a person's intuition and conclusion after
consideration of a matter, but divine communication to His Prophets and
Messengers.
Continuing his analysis Bell says that wapy means, "at any rate in the early
portions of the Qur'an", not that it had been conveyed to the Prophet verbally,
but "that the idea of composing a Qur'an" had been "suggested" to him. Bell next
states that as the Prophet's "theory of revelation developed" he "extended the
signification of the word to cover the communication of long passages in verbal
I Ibid., 147.
2
Ibid.
' Ibid.
4
Ibid., 148.
BELL'S VIEWS ABOUT THE QUR' ANIC W AijY 127
form"; for "there are some passages in which this would be the natural implication"
1
such as 11:40, 12:102. 18:27 and 20:45.
1
Thus would Bell appear to suggest that
parts of the Qur'an are God's verbal communications and parts are not so. But he
would not really commit himself to that position; for having made the above
statement he attempts to neutralize its effect by saying that the passages referred
to "are probably fairly late, and in all of them it would be at least possible to avoid
giving the word the sense of actual verbal communication. "
2
Clearly, Bell here
betrays his ultimate intention to "avoid", by any means, "giving the word the
sense of actual verbal communication". One may only observe that it is of course
possible to twist and "avoid" that sense, but that is "their natural implication", as
Bell admits, perhaps unguardedly.
It may also be noted in this connection that whenever a Qur'anic passage runs
counter to his assumption Bell attempts to assign it a late date or an earlier one, as
it suits his purpose. The passages cited are all Makkan. Even if for argument's
sake it is admitted that they are "probably fairly late", Bell does not appear
consistent in his assertion that as the Prophet's theory of revelation developed he
extended the signification of the word to cover verbal communication. For
having said so he cites 42:50 (in fact 42:51) which says: "It is not for man that
Allah speaks to him except by waf;y, or from behind a veil or He sends a
messenger who communicates by His order what He wills ... "
3
And a little further
on he states that in this passage "one almost sees Muhammad's conception of
how the revelation came to him, growing before our eyes ... "
4
Thus Bell would
have us believe in the same breath that as the Prophet's conception of waf;y
developed he extended its meaning to cover verbal communication, and that at
the same time he said that waf(y could not be verbal communication! The fact is
that neither was the Prophet nor is the Qur'an so inconsistent. It is Bell himself
who has misunderstood the sense of waf;y as given by the Qur'an. He has also
misunderstood the meaning of the passage 12:51. It does in no way mean that
wafty cannot be verbal communication; it merely describes the manner and methods
of communicating Allah's words to man. It would seem that as the passage says
that Allah does not speak to man directly, i.e., face to face, Bell takes waf?y to
means Allah's "indirect speech" in the English grammatical sense!
1
Ibid. The italicization is mine.
2
Ibid.
3
The passage runs as follows: ... ,w., Lo <Jl4 ~ . r . ' ~ _ . . . . . ; J---" ;I yL...- ,I;; .:r ;It,.. J ~ ~ .o.lll ~ 0! _,..:.,)015' Lo J
4
M.W.,1934,p.148.
That Bell puts that English grammatical sense of "indirect speech" is further
clear from what he observes next, saying that the passage 42:51 is a confession
that the "direct speech of Allah in some of the Qur'anic passages where He
speaks "in His proper person in the first person singular" is wrong. Bell writes:
"There are still one or two passages in the Qur'an in which Allah is made to speak
in His own proper person in the first person singular; c.f. li:56-58, lxxiv:11-15. If
this direct speech of Allah to the Prophet was wrong, as the above passage seems
to confess, how much more the claim to have actually seen Him."
1
It should at once be pointed out that the passage 42:51 does not say that waf;y
cannot be verbal communication; it does not confess that the statements in the
Qur'an in "direct speech" of Allah (in the English grammatical sense) is wrong.
Bell's assumption throughout that the Qur'an is the Prophet's own composition is
wrong and it is the point at issue. Not only the "one or two passages" cited above
by Bell, nor even those admitted by Bell to imply verbal communication, but the
entire Qur'an, whether a passage is formulated in "direct speech" or in "indirect
speech", is verbal communication of Allah's words. Also the assumption that the
Prophet initially claimed to have seen Allah is wrong. It remains to see what
actually is the signification of wa!!J glimpsed from the Qur'an itself and how and
where Bell has erred in thinking that waf;y means "suggestion" or "inspiration".
To anyone who has a knowledge of the Qur'an it should be obvious that Bell's
survey of the Qur'anic use of the word wab.J is not at all comprehensive, nor even
objective. He has selected only such passages as he thinks would support his view
that the word does not mean verbal communication of a text; for that is what he
confessedly intends to "avoid" even where that sense is the "natural" one. Even
then, the meanings he puts on the word do not appear to be adequate or
appropriate in respect of all the instances he has cited. Thus, in the instances of
wafo to the Prophets for what he calls practical lines of conduct the meaning of
the term should be, as pointed out earlier, command or directive and not simply
suggestion or prompting as such. Again, the 'iqra' passage, where of course the
term wafo does not occur but which Bell himself acknowledges to be part of the
Qur'anic waf;y, is a command, and not suggestion. More specifically, the waf(y to
be given to the earth on the doomsday will not be a suggestion or prompting. Bell
in fact commits a mistake in saying that the earth would be prompted to give up
its dead- the meaning of the 'qyahs 99:4-5 is: "On that day she shall speak out her
I Ibid.
BELL'S VIEWS ABOUT THE QUR' ANIC W 129
affairs, because your Lord will waljy her." Clearly the sense here is that Allah will
command the earth, together with giving her the speaking power, to speak out
her affairs. Waljy here bears this dual sense; for every one knows that the earth as
it is at present has no speaking power, and no simple suggestion or prompting
will make her speak. To give just one instance outside Bell's survey. "That is some
of the tidings of things unseen which We wa!J.y to you", so runs 3:44.
1
Here the
term wa!J.y clearly means the communication of some unseen (unknown) affair,
and not at all suggestion or inspiration about some unknown affair. Thus the
meanings by Bell do not appropriately and adequately convey the sense
of the term even in respect of the instances he has cited. If indeed a common
English equivalent for wal;y must needs be found out, it should be
"communication", rather than suggestion, prompting, etc. This expression would
probably fit in all the situations.
Since the word waljy is used in various senses in connection with different
subjects and situations the proper course in understanding the sense of the term
in relation to any particular subject is to examine the uses made of it in
connection only with that subject. It is on that basis that in Islamic religious
parlance the term wa!J.y is applied to Allah's communications to His Prophets and
Messengers. In other words, the technical meaning of wa!J.y, apart from its general
meanings, is Allah's communications to His Prophets and Messengers. And just
like the English word 'communication', wab.J means both the act or process of
communicating (i.e. as verb) and also that which is communicated (i.e., the
subject matter). As such waljy may be of various types in accordance with the
manners or processes of its communication, as well as in accordance with the
nature of the subject which is communicated.
The passage 42:51 noticed above speaks about the manners or processes of
the coming of wa!J.y to the Prophets. The 'qyah mentions three ways in which
Allah's words are made to reach His chosen man, namely, (a) by means of wa!!J,
(b) from behind the veil and (c) by sending a messenger (the angel Jibril) who "by
His order communicates (yubi) what He wills". It may be observed that the nature
of the first category is not further elaborated here. Obviously it includes all the
various processes besides the other two. An example of the second category is
the famous incident of Allah's speaking to Musa while remaining unseen. The
third type is self-explanatory and is mentioned also in the New Testament.
1
Thetextrunsas: .... .!.\,11-,..y..,._,ojl,t,;I.J'.!.ll; SeealsoQ.l2:102.
Similarly waf.!y may be of different types depending on the nature of the matter
communicated. And of such various types according to subject-matter only one
particular type of wa!!J forms the scripture, the Book or Recitation (Qur'an). Thus,
when Musa was commanded to follow what is called a practical line of conduct,
such as striking the rock with his staff, that was of course waf?y, but not the Torah.
Only that which was specifically communicated as Torah was Torah. Likewise, of
the various types of waf?y made to Mul;ammad (p.b.h.) only that which was
communicated as Qur'an is Qur'an. And only this type is to be called the
Qur'anic wa!!J. Hence, while each and every word of the Qur'an is undoubtedly
wary, each and every wa!!J to Mul).ammad is not the Qur'an. There are many
examples of non-Qur'anic waf.!y to him, such as f;adith qudsi, the information given
him in dream about the nature of the place of his migration, etc.
It should be clear from the above that to understand the nature of Qur'anic
waf.!y it is necessary to concentrate our attention upon such passages of the Qur'an
as speak of its communication to the Prophet, and not upon all the passages
where the term w a ~ occurs in its general sense. If we did so, it would be seen that
there are a number of such passages which, while speaking about the delivery of
the Qur'an to the Prophet, also use the specific term waf!y. There are, however, a
large number of passages which very much speak about the coming of the Qur'an
to the Prophet but which do not employ the term wab.J. In fact, it is this latter
group of passages that contain more significant expressions elucidating the nature
of Qur'anic waf!y.
There are some forty passages in the Qur'an wherein the term wary occurs in
connection with its coming to the Prophet. While in the majority of such passages
there is no particular indication of the nature of Qur'anic wa!!J, there are at least a
dozen of them that contain expressions explaining its nature. An examination of
these passages yields the following facts:
(1) The Qur'anic waf.!y itself, and not anything else, which is to be recited/read
out. Thus 13:30 states:
... ~ I 1..:,>-} -,>.iJI ~ lp r-"i 4J.,j .y cl>- ..U ;;_.f J .!.ll:.L) .;.l.l
"Thus have We sent you (as Messenger) among a people before whom (other) peoples have
passed away, in order that you recite unto them that which We have wal;y-ied to you ... ".
Here the clear implication is, it is that type of waf.!y which is to be read out. That
means, it is in the form of a readable text and not simply a suggestion which is to
be worked out and presented in the form of a reading material. And it is precisely
BELL'S VIEWS ABOUT THE QUR'ANIC WAJ:fY
131
because this type of wal;y is to be recited and read out, its other name is Qur'an,
the Reading or Recitation.
(2) It is a scripture (Book) which is and which is to be recited. Thus,
18:27 states:
... .ul.KJ '1 yl:S' ,y ..:.l,Ji <,F} L..JIJ
"And recite what I wafty to you of the Book of your Lord. No one can change His words ... "
Similarly 29:45 states:
... y\.::()1 ,y ..:.L,.ll <.F )f L,. Jl
"Recite what I waf;y to you of the Book. ... "
Again, 35:31 states:
.... Y' y\.::()1 ,y ..:.l,Ji l.,>-Jf (,?.ill)
"And that which I have wafty-ied to you of the Book is the truth .... "
Thus, what was communicated (wal;y-ied) to the Prophet was a Book, not that it
was suggested to him to produce a Book. It is also noteworthy that the first
passage in this series speaks of the Qur'anic waf!y as Allah's "words" (kalimdkht),
emphasizing that there is none to change His words.
(3) That which was waf!y-ied is a "Recitation - Qur'an", and in a specific
language. Thus, 42:7 states:
... l.:!_r ..:.L,.ll L.,..-} .;J.l )
"Thus have We wafty-ied to you a Qur'an (Recitation) in Arabic.
The same fact is stressed 12:2 where the term 'a'!Jalnd (We have sent down),
instead of 'awqqynd (We have communicated) is used. Thus , it is a "Recitation"
which had been wab-ied to the Prophet, not that he was wal;y-ied to produce a
recitation.
( 4) That the Prophet was first to listen to what was being to him, and
not to hasten to repeating/reciting it before the completion of its
communication. Thus 20:114 states:
... .,... ) ..:.L,.ll 0! J.i ,y ..}-.,.; '1 )
"And be not in haste with the Qur'an (Recitation) before its wab-ing is completed."
(5) That the Qur'anic waf!y, and not simply the Qur'an as such, consists of
narrations/ accounts. 12:3 thus states:
... }JI \.La. ..:.l,Ji l.,>-} ..:.,->"(
"We narrate unto you the best of narratives as we wa!!J to you this Qur'an."
Here "the best of narratives" is a description of the waf?y which is communicated
as Qur\1n. Indeed the verbs naquf.fU (We narrate) and 'awf?qynli (We waf(y) used in
the passage are more or less coterminous.
(6) To the same effect are the passages that say that the Qur'anic waf.!y itself,
not simply the Qur'an as such, consists of tidings/reports of events and affairs.
Thus 11 :49 states:
.. . c.l,Ji 4>- j ~ I ~ ~ \ ,y -!.11'
"Those are the tidings of the unseen that We waf!y to you ... "
Similarly 12:102 states:
... c.l,Ji 4>- j ~ I ~ ~ ~ ,y ..!..lb
"That is one of the tidings of the unseen which We waf!y to you ... "
(7) Last but not least, it is specifically stressed that the Qur'an is no
composition of the Prophet himself and that nothing could be a graver sin on his
part than to give out as Allah's words that which was not actually communicated
to him as such. 6:93 states this very emphatically as follows:
... .J.JI Jjl Lo J!-o J;L Jt; ,y J ~ ~ <1)1 <.? .Ji. ~ J Jl .,r} Jt; } ~ . . 1 5 ' .J.JI Js- l> pi ,y ,y ~ ~ ,y J
"And who could be a worse transgressor than the one who forges a lie against Allah or claims:
'It has been waf!y-ied to me', while nothing has been waf!y-ied to him, and the one who says: 'I shall
bring down the like of what Allah has sent down ... ?"
In the passages cited above the word waf.!y has not been translated but left as it
is, with the suffixes 'ied' or 'ing' to indicate the tense in English. The meaning
should be clear from the context of the sentence. It should also be clear from the
above mentioned passages that it is a description of the Qur'anic waf;y itself that
(a) it is some specific text which is to be recited,; (b) that it is the Book which is
communicated and which is Allah's words (kalimlitiht); (c) that it is communicated
in Arabic language; (d) that the Prophet is to listen to it carefully before hastening
to repeat it; (e) that sometimes it consists of "narratives" and "reports" and (f)
that it is no composition of the Prophet himself and that nothing could be a
graver sin on his part than to compose a text and then give it out as one from
Allah. All these facts unmistakably emphasize textual and verbal communication
and not at all communication of ideas or thoughts nor what is called "suggestion,
"prompting", "inspiration", "intuition", etc.
These facts are drawn only from such passages as contain the term wal;y (in its
various forms) in connection with the communication of the Qur'an to the
Prophet. These are, however, very strongly supplemented and corroborated by a
far larger number of passages dealing with the same subject but not using the
BELL'S VIEWS ABOUT THE QUR' ANIC W AlfY 133
term waf!y and showing clearly that the Qur'an was delivered to the Prophet
verbatim and in the form of specific texts. These passages will be considered a
litde later on in connection with the discussion on the views of Watt who, it will
be seen, attempts in his own way merely to substantiate the views of Bell.
1
It
should be clear from the above, however, that Bell's confusion and mistakes arise
from: (a) his having concentrated his attention on the general use of the term waqy
in the Qur'an; (b) his having failed to notice that the meanings he has suggested
for the word do not properly convey its sense even in the cases he has cited (e.g.,
waf?y to the earth); (c) his having made no distinction between the general sense
and the technical sense of the term; (d) his not having recognized the distinction
between the Qur'anic waqy on the one hand and the other types of waqy to the
Prophet, on the other; (e) his not having taken proper account of even those
passages that use the term waf!y in speaking about the transmission of the Qur'an
to the Prophet, and, finally, (f) his not having at all taken into consideration the
vast number of passages that deal with the same subject without using the term
waqy but employing a number of other expressions that very clearly and
unequivocally elucidate the nature of Qur'anic waqy. In fine, it may once again be
pointed out that one is of course free to believe or not to believe that the Qur'an
is Allah's words; but if one attempts to pronounce a judgement on its n a t ~ r e on
the basis of the Qur'anic evidence, one must take into account the whole range of
evidences and should not simply satisfy oneself with those that are not quite to
the point and, further, should not twist or misinterpret, instead of admitting the
"natural" sense of any expression or statement.
1
Infra, chap. VI and VII.
CHAPTER VI
THE ORIENTALISTS ON THE QUR'ANIC WAHY:
III. WATT'S TREATMENT OF AL-ZUHRI'S REPORT
ON THE COMING OF WAI;-IY
I. PRELIMINARY REMARKS
Watt takes over from his predecessors, particularly from Margoliouth and Bell,
and attempts to support mainly their assumptions. Thus he reiterates (a) that the
Prophet had initially claimed to have seen Allah; (b) that Jibril was introduced at a
later stage as the conveyer of waqy; (c) that waqy does not mean verbal
communication of a text, but "suggestion" or "inspiration" to follow a practical
line of conduct or to give out the Qur'an and (d) that the Qur'anic wab is in some
form or other part ofMul;lammad's (p.b.h.) consciousness.
In reproducing his predecessors' views, however, Watt does not always recite
their premises and grounds. Thus, while Bell would discount the traditions
concerning the coming of wafty as fabrications of a later age and would not take
them into consideration in this connection, Watt would not do so. He would
rather try to support the Margoliouth-Bell assumptions by having recourse to
both the Qur'an and the traditions. In doing so, however, he would select only
such traditions as he thinks support his views. In such a case he would not go
into the question of the authenticity of the particular tradition and would simply
dispose of the matter by observing that much is not to be gained by discussing
the isnad. Even then he would not abide by the information supplied by his
chosen piece of the report as a whole but would accept only those parts of it as
suit his purpose and would reject the other parts as of doubtful validity. He also
advances some further arguments, not quite his own, to support the
Margoliouth-Bell theory. Thus he uses the expressions al-rup and ai-!Jaqq, as
mentioned in the Qur'an and the traditions in connection with the coming of
waf.!y, and interprets them as being coterminous with Allah. Again, while
Margoliouth uses the writing of Podmore, Watt has recourse to that of A. Poulain
to provide a psychological/mystical explanation of the phenomena of wab.
Another remarkable feature of Watt's approach is that unlike his predecessors
he makes a specific claim to impartiality in theological matters and to academic
objectivity. He even castigates the previous European writes in general for their
lack of sympathetic understanding of Islam and its Prophet. Such declarations of
impartiality and neutrality, besides being uncalled for, are sharply at odds with the
WAITS TREATMENT OF AL-ZUHRI'S REPORT 135
practical line of approach he adopts; for he in fact and essence reiterates mainly
his predecessors' views and assumptions, and that too with no discernible degree
of greater sympathy towards Islam and the Prophet.
II. WATT's SEGMENTATION oF AL-ZUHRi's REPORT
Watt starts his discussion on the coming of wai?J by quoting what he calls
Al-Zuhri's report. This report, it may be pointed out, is in fact 'A'ishah's (r.a.)
report coming through Al-Zuhri and reproduced in various works including
Bukhdrt and the work of Al-Tabari. It is to be noted at the outset that the version
in Bukhdrt is the most authentic and reliable. Watt, however, prefers Al-Tabari's
version saying that it "has not been rewritten, as has Ibn Hisham's version. "
1
He
does not mention Bukhdrtat all in this connection. In Al-Tabari's work Al-Zuhri's
report consists of some three paragraphs, the first two being a continuous
account and the third being in the nature of an independent report reproduced by
Al-Tabari a couple of pages subsequent to the first two paragraphs. Watt
reproduces this text in his own translation. In doing so, however, he breaks the
three paragraphs into as many as 12 "passages", which he numbers alphabetically
from A to L, stating that he has done so "for convenience" and that the divisions
"come at breaks in az-Zuhri's material, as indicated by the change of narrator. "
2
In order to enable the reader the better to understand Watt's treatment we
reproduce in the footnote Al-Tabari's text in Arabic, indicating in round brackets
the portions that are broken into 12 passages by Watt and numbered respectively
from A to L.
3
1
Watt, M. atM., 40.
2
Ibid.
3
The Arabic text runs as follows:
J\5":-:.Ju 4'l .;r i;/ .;r h" )l.;r '"'.;..., .c.:.l; .:r. Jt....jl "'-'-" :J!i '-"1 G.b. Ju .r.? .:r. Y"; G .... Ju ,lj_,....l ;_,...ll JW. .:r. ........ 1._2.b.l)
JIJ,i ,;..11 -:,1;; J\,lll ,Y ,l..i"" ;U.,J\5:; <,II-,..,.. r'J ,;lJ J.t ....-' .:,.;\5" <.bi..,.JI if' _,ll 0" <J-. .UI ..}--> .UI Jy J '< c.> ..I:, I l..oJ}
.::,..i.. j !"'li ,jof) -:, ,_; ..l.... ) <J-. .UI ..}--> .UIJy; Ju) (.UI Jy; .:,.;I .W... :JW ,:;.JI ,t..;.? 4i'-J ';:;J .U...I Jl E" .U...I Jl E" f.
"".;Jt.."" ..,.-" c>l Jl "--" :Ju) (.UI Jy :Jw t;} .;s- Y"; .r ,; ,J-j ,; ,J-j :.::.lil ""'-"' Js- .>J'Iy. ...:-;
lji:Ju -4>-ll .j-' (:1<.? -:,l..r' ,jl>.!iJu Yljl \..o :c.]; 1)1 :Jli ("'J (.UI Jy; .:,.;1) J..r."" lil ;_..., :JW.!.U.l, "--" .:r-"' J c.>..l,:i j,...
J.c,.;) j..-:l.!lil .UI; 1-'li.UI .!.l,]>'o< 'Y .UI_,i r-<1 :.:.JW 4' .r.'(; ..;-" Js- ..tAl :.::.lil...,-'>' ..:..,;(;) (d,Ai JL- c.> .ill.!.!,;
1.1.: ..;.r.'(; ,}W .!-1 0<10" e:-'1 .:..lu..._.l J. cY} .:r.<i;; Jl <J' ("'J (.:;.JI.,_Jij Js- .;r.U) ..;.,.;.JI j.-..J) :cl..o';l
'YI'< .:;._b,.l..., .blj...; ''-""' ..;1 {""' Ju!i"'" <?.f"-'1 :c.]; .!.1-_,l .!.kf"-< .:r-"' l,.- J.,s-1 t .i..,. 4J 01,._. J. CS"Y' Js- J) J'.Y'UI
.!1;1; Jy...- .r-' 1?'; .!.lJ Jl) 0,..... .!.!,; "'- .:,.;1 \..o J;;....., \..o) rl'll; J 1)1 "-< Jl_..i)10" Jj \..o J;f J\5" (l;jJ.' l.r"' .!l,..-;1.!.1-y. ,/;'1 Ji;
( ...r-' blj,ll; ..,..._;.ll;) ;.1!ir-' }.W14<1 J;_,..,) ..;1- J..l
J'J'J Jl ; .... J- 1-'l.L:. J_r-i i,;" ;<# .UI ..}--> .UI Jy;.f .,r_,ll? :Ju r""./ ;yJ.I G.b. :Ju Js-';1-.:r. ;_...,G.b.)
,;r .!>.;..., <J-. .UI ..}--> ,_r.)IJ\5:;) (-.....<; <,II E")) ...:,{,. .!,lJ.lJ J.-..,; .UI .!1;1 : J_,.iJ J..r."" ,J c.>.l,i j,... -:, )J;,., .) ;f L.J.S:i 4'-' '-'' _?. Jl,.JI _..ly
The following is a summary of Watt's translation of the twelve passages into
which he divides Al-'fabari's version of Al-Zuhri's report:
A. In this passage Watt places the first part of 'A'ishah's (r.a.) report which
says that the beginning of revelation was with al-ruyd al-fddiqah which he
translates as "true vision". "It used to come like the breaking of dawn."
B. In the second passage Watt places the portion of the report which
immediately follows the above and which says that afterwards solitude became
dear to the Prophet and he went to I;-Iira' for taf;annuth, ending with the statement:
"At length, unexpectedly, the Truth came to him and said, 0 Muhammad, thou
art the Messenger of God."
C. In the third passage Watt places the portion which comes immediately after
the above and wherein the Messenger of Allah says he had been standing but fell
on his knees, then he went to Khadijah (r.a.) and asked her to cover him, which
was done, until his panic was over, ending with the statement: "Then he came to
me and said, 0 Muhammad, thou art the Messenger of God.".
D. In the fourth passage are placed the succeeding few lines of the report
wherein the Messenger of Allah is stated to have said that he had been meditating
throwing himself from a mountain crag, but while he was so meditating, "he
appeared to me and said, 0 Muhammad, I am Gabriel, and thou art the
Messenger of God."
E. In the fifth passage are placed the few succeeding lines of the report that
narrate the angel's saying to the Messenger of Allah: "Recite", and his replying: "I
cannot recite (or "what shall I recite")"; then the angel's squeezing him thrice and
then saying: "Recite in the name of thy Lord who created. And I recited."
F. In the sixth passage are placed a few more succeeding lines of the report
that speak of the Messenger of Allah's returning to Khadijah (.r.a.), expressing
anxiety about himself and her words of consolation to him, ending with the
statement: "You succour the agents of the truth(?)."
G. In the seventh passage are placed a few further lines of the report that
speak of Khadijah's (r.a.) taking her husband to Waraqah ibn Nawfal, his listening
to the Messenger of Allah's experience and then remarking: "This is the ndmus
which was sent down (or revealed) to Musa", adding that the Messenger of Allah
would be expelled by his tribe together with the Messenger of Allah's surprise at
'-'!- oU...)) (.j}.-j :.;..l.U "'-<..\>'- Jl Y,; ,t.....JI.:r-< .,rJ' J.s-1.;>-< .r-4.:>15' jll.oy. _.:...! :Ju.o\Jj
< r!t.. E ..r- J.>. c<.lll .!.!,; r--4 !_,;1 :.Y... J)u-!- J} .:>lS:l :'-'-"' )1 Ju) .!.!,L; J ?-' .!.!,; J ;.;;!.; ,..; ;.w1 4<! 4 :J>. J r .J.J1 J;li- ;,
that, etc., ending with Waraqah's remark that if he lived long he would help him
valiantly.
H. In the eighth passage are placed the next few lines of the report wherein
the Messenger of Allah is stated to have said that the first part of the Qur'an to be
revealed was surah 96 (ai-'Aiaq), surah 68:1-5 (a/Qalam), surah 74:1-2
(ai-Muddaththir) and surah 93:1-2
I. In the ninth passage is reproduced part of Al-Zuhri's report about the Jatrah
(pause) in the coming of waf;y, which is given by Al-Tabari a couple of pages
subsequently and which says that the Messenger of Allah became so sad at the
cessation of waf.!y that he used to go to the mountain tops to throw himself down
from them and that each time he was about to do so the angel Jibril appeared
before him and said: "Thou art the Prophet of Allah. At this his restlessness
would cease ... "
J. In the tenth passage a few more lines of the above mentioned report which
says that speaking about the jatrah the Messenger of Allah said "While I was
walking one day, I saw the angel who used to come to me at !:lira' on a throne
between heaven and earth. I was stricken with fear of him, and returned to
Khadijah and said: cover me."
K. In the eleventh passage is placed the continuing lines of the report that say:
"So we covered him, that is we put a dathar on .... and God the most high sent
down, 0 thou clothed in dathar .... Thy garments purify."
L. In the twelfth passage are placed the remaining lines of the report in which
Al-Zuhri states that the first revelation to the Prophet was: Recite in the name of
thy Lord who created .... up to what he did not know."
Watt also gives the summary of Al-Zuhri's report from J:ibir ibn 'Abd Allah
about fatrah and the revelation of the first part of sura! ai-Muddaththir.
Thus having reproduced Al-Zuhri's report Watt proceeds to consider what he
calls "the internal evidence of the passages" and the "various features of the
stories". He does so under seven sub-headings and a final section. The
sub-headings are as follows:
(a) Muhammad's visions"
(b) "The visit to !:lira'; taqannuth"
(c) "Thou art the Messenger of God"
(d) "Recite"
(e) "Sura! ai-Muddaththir; the fatrah"
(f) "Muhammad's fear and despair"
(g) Encouragement from Khaclijah and Waraqah"
The final section is entitled: "The form of Muhammad's Prophetic
consciousness". These are discussed below.
A. "MUHAMMAD'S VISIONS"
Watt starts his discussion under this first sub-heading of his by referring to
that part of Al-Zuhri's report which he places in his passage A. He says that there
are no good grounds for doubting that Muhammad's (p.b.h.) prophetic
experience began with "true vision" and observes that this "is quite distinct from
dreams" and that "visions are mentioned also in B and J (apart from the
appearances of Gabriel in D and I). "
1
It may at once be pointed out that Watt adopts here simply Bell's translation
of the expression al-ruyd al-.radiqah. The faults in Bell's assumption have already
been pointed out and it has been shown that the expression means "true dreams"
and not "true vision".
2
It may also be recalled that Al-Zuhri's, or rather 'A'ishah's
(r.a.) report in Bukhdrf which Bell quotes contains the expression "in sleep" after
"true dreams". Al-'"fabari's version of the report, which is not quite accurate and
which Watt adopts, does not of course contain the expression "in sleep", but it is
clear from the internal evidence of even this version that al-ruyd al-fddiqah which
is stated as the beginning of the Prophetic experience is a stage quite distinct
from, and prior to, the one that followed, namely, t a ~ a n n u t h at the cave of J:Iini'
and the experience which came in its wake. The unequivocal statement of the
report, which Watt places at the start of his passage B, is: "Afterwards solitude
became dear to him, and he would go to a cave on J:Iira' to engage in tal;annuth ... "
Watt disregards this clear distinction between the two types of experiences
described in the report, adopts the faulty or rather tendentious translation of Bell
and thus equates the expression al-ruyd a/ fddiqah with the other type of
experience described in his passages B and J, thus doing violence to the tenor and
purport of the text he himself adopts. The post-taf;annuth experience is nowhere
described in the traditions, nor in the Qur'an as ai-ruya al-{adiqah. A moment's
reflection also makes it clear that the addition of the adjective al-{adiqah to the act,
al-ruya, indicates that it is a description of that type of viewing 'which is usually
1
Watt, M. atM., 42.
2
Supra, pp. 117-120.
and normally not "true", that is dream. No one would bother to add the adjective
"true" to the act of physical viewing with one's eyes.
Watt's purpose is, however, to bring the so-called "vision" in line with what is
described in sural ai-Nqjm, and thus support the Margoliouth-Bell theory
discussed in the previous chapters. Hence, immediately after having made the
above noted statements Watt cites that surah as supportive evidence of the
"vision" and quotes its first 18 'qyahs (omitting 'qyahs 11 and 12) in his own
translation. He then observes that "there are good grounds for thinking that
Muhammad originally interpreted these as visions of God Himself. "
1
The grounds
mentioned by Watt are:
(i) "There is no mention of Jibril in the Qur'an until the Medinan period."
(ii) The subject of the verbs in verse 10 of the sural ai-Nqjm should be God, or
else the construction becomes "awkward".
(iii) "The phrase at the end of passage B, 'the Truth came to him and said ... ' is
similar in import," for "the Truth is a way of referring to God."
(iv) Jibir ibn 'Abd Allah's tradition, which is referred to by Bell, quotes the
Prophet as saying, in Bell's translation: " .. .I heard a voice calling me, and I looked
all around but could see no one; then I looked above my head and there he was
. . h h 112
s1ttmg upon t e t rone ...
In translating the passage of sural ai-Nqjm Watt adopts Bell's rendering of the
terms waf!y and 'aw&a as "suggestions" and "suggested". These meanings, as
pointed out in the previous chapter, are not at all correct for Qur'anic waf!y.
Moreover, Watt's statement, "Muhammad originally interpreted" etc. suggests
that the passage of surat ai-Nqjm, on which Watt obviously bases his statement, is
an "interpretation", that is, a composition by Mul).ammad (p.b.h.), a view which
is common to all the orientalists, though Watt appears not to avow it openly.
As regards the grounds mentioned by Watt all, except iii, are simply Bell's.
These assertions of his and their premises have already been examined and it has
been shown that each item of the assumptions is untenable. In iv Watt does not
specifically reiterate Bell's mistaken claim that "the throne" is appropriate to Allah
and leaves the reader to understand it. The mistake in this particular assumption
has also been pointed out.
3
As regards Jabir ibn 'Abd Allah report,
which Watt himself cites,
4
it may be noted that it unequivocally points out that
1
WAIT, M. atM., 42.
2
Ibid.
' See the previous chapter.
'WArr,M.atM.,41.
the Messenger of Allah "saw the angel" who used to come to him at I;Iira', "on a
chair between the sky and the earth."
1
Regarding Watt's own addition to the stock of arguments, namely iii above,
two things need to be noted. First, the version of Al-Zuhri's report in Bukhart and
other works is slighdy different at this point. In these works the text runs as: hatta
ja'ahu al-l;aqq wa huwa fl ghar Ifira' fa ja'ahu al-malak fa qala ... , meaning "till the
truth came to him while he was in the cave of Hira'. The angel came to hiin and
said .... " In Al-Tabari's version, which Watt quotes, the expression is :fa ja'ahu
al-f?aqq fa 'atahu fa qala ... , meaning "Till the truth surprised him. He came to him
and said ... " Thus the expression fa ja 'ahu is replaced by fa ja 'ahu, and there is no
mention of the angel at this point. But it is to be noted thatfaja'ahu al-paqq is one
sentence, and fa 'atahu fa qala is another sentence. Watt, however, does not
translate this part of the report quite faithfully. He combines the two sentences
into one, translating it as: "At length unexpectedly the Truth came to him and
said .... " The Arabic equivalent of this translation would be: fa ja'ahu al-paqq fa
qala. Watt has thus omitted the expression fa 'atahu, which is the beginning of an
independent sentence. He has also capitalized the first letter of "truth" so that the
meaning is more in line with his suggestion. If this was not done, and if due
attention was paid to the specific mention of the angel at two places in the text
which is continuous here in the original but which he has broken into as many as
seven passages "for convenience", it would have been clear that the subject of the
verb fa 'atahu is the angel. Even after such division of a continuous text Watt
recognizes that the angel Jibril is mentioned by name not very far away from this
part, i.e., in what he chops into passage D.
Further, it is to be noticed that in the original Arabic text, which is continuous,
the appearance of the entity is mentioned three times thus: fa 'atdhu fa qala ....
thumma 'atanf fa qala .... fa tabadda If... fa qala ya Mul;ammad 'ana fibril, meaning: "So
he came to me and said.... Then he came to me and said.... Thereupon he
appeared before me ... and said: 0 Muhammad, I am Jibril." The prepositions fa,
thumma and fa prefixed to the verbs show conclusively that the same entity is
spoken of throughout. Up to this point in the report there is no break in the
narrative nor any change of narrator. The sole narrator here is 'A'ishah (r.a.) who
is giving the account sometimes in her own words and sometimes in the words of
the Prophet himself. Watt himself seems to recognize this fact when he says:
1
See AI-'fabari, T drfkh, p. 1156.
WAIT'S TREATMENT OF AL-ZUHRI'S REPORT 141
"Passages A to H were presumably continuous in az-Zuhri, but they need not all
have come from 'A'ishah. "
1
The manoeuvre thus made here to create doubt
about 'A'ishah (r.a.) being the narrator is obvious but not justifiable. Passage H of
course comes in Al-Tabari in a separate paragraph, and it need not have come
from her; but there can be no doubt that the section previous to H is a
continuous narrative and the sole narrator is 'A'ishah (r.a.). Watt makes another
attempt to confuse the issue here. He says that the fact "that Ibn Ishaq breaks off
'A'ishah's narrative after the first sentence of B [i.e., "Afterwards solitude became
dear to him"] is probably due to his having other versions of the remainder which
he preferred, and does not necessarily indicate a break in the source at that
point."
2
The remark is curious because if Ibn Ishaq's having preferred "other
versions" does not "necessarily indicate a break in the source at that point", why
then this emphasis on his breaking off of 'A'ishah's narrative? The remark is also
inappropriate, because we are concerned here with 'A'ishah's (Al-Zuhri's)
account as given in Al-Tabari, and not with Ibn Ishaq's version which Watt
himself does not adopt because, according to him, it has been rewritten. It
appears that while dividing Al-Zuhri's account into so many passages on the
ground of what he calls breaks in the material indicated by change of narrator,
Watt cannot at the same time conceal the fact that there really is no break in the
narrative in its greater and most material part, nor any change of narrator there,
and that the divisions made by him are arbitrary and not even in accordance with
the grounds he has advanced for his doing so.
It seems that the real reason for his having sliced Al-Zuhri's account into so
many passages is to suggest, as he does shortly afterwards, that the speaker to
Mulpmmad (p.b.h.) in passage B is "the Truth", in C "merely he" and in D and I
Jibrie Watt also intends to maintain that Jibril, who is mentioned by name in two
of the passages, need not be taken into account in connection with the coming of
waf:y to Mul).ammad (p.b.h.). It must not, however, be lost sight of that Al-Zuhri's
account is very much continuous and that even after the divisions introduced on
purpose by Watt the existence of the prepositions fa) thumma and fa with the verbs
that follow the sentence fa ja'ahu a l - ~ a q q shows that it is the same entity, Jibril,
who is spoken of throughout and who is mentioned by name at the end. The
sequence of the description as well as grammatical rules require that Jibril should
1
WAIT, M.atM,41..
2
lbtd.
' Ibid., 45.
be the subject of the verb fa 'atdhu with which the narration starts here and which
Watt omits from his translation.
The third thing to note in this connection is the relation of the sentence fa
ja'ahu (Suddenly the truth came to him) with what follows in the text, as
well as the meaning of the expression al-l;aqq. It may be recalled that the
expression in other versions of the report is fa jd'ahu al-l;aqq (Iben the truth came
to him". There is, however, little difference in the sense in either form. What
follows in the text is of course a description of how "the truth" came to the
Prophet; but neither does ai-J;aqq mean Allah, nor is it, as shown above, the
subject of the verbs that occur in the description which follows. Watt puts the
meaning of Allah upon the expression because, according to him, "this is a way of
referring to God. "
1
His reasoning itself betrays an admission that there are other
senses in which the term al-l;aqq is used. Indeed, it occurs more than 260 times in
the Qur'an in more than 20 different senses.
2
Nowhere in the Qur'an, however,
does al-f;aqq appear independently to denote Allah. It is only at 9 places that it
comes as an attribute of Him, but always along with the mention of Allah or rabb,
such as at 10:30, 10:32, 20:114, 23:116, 24:25, etc.
3
On the other hand, it has been
used in the sense of Qur'anic wal;y more than fifty times., being the largest single
majority of instances in which it has been used in a particular sense, and that also
almost always with the verb jd'a. Some of the instances are as follows:
(1) _r-l I..L. 01 1_,)1.; \..;..!..;&. ,y J>-.11 w;
"When came to them from Us they said: This is indeed evident sorcery" (10:76)
(2) .:r..r-JI ,y ,j _J:.; ,y J>-.11 J.A.l
has indeed come to you from your Lord. So be in no wise of those in doubt." (10:94)
(3) <5" y J Jf \... _p J} "') _,J l_,lt.; \..;..!..;&. ,y J>-.11 w;
"But when al-f;aqq has come to them from Ourselves, they say: Why is he not given the like of
what Musa was given?" (28:48)
(4) J_,.....J J J>-.11 ...;> J J.
"Rather I have given good things to these people and their ancestors, till al-f;aqq has come to
them, and a Messenger making things clear." (43:29)
(5) 0 J)lS' 4.! \..il J .?'-" I..L. l_,ll.; J>-.11 W J
"And when came to them they said: This is sorcery and we reject it." (43:30)
I Ibid., 42.
2
See for instance 'Abd al-Ral;!man al-Rawi, Kalimat al-lfaqq Ff 2 Vols, Imam University, Riyadh,
1409 H.
' The expressions respectively at these places are: mawldhum al-Ifaqq, rabbukum al-ij.aqq, Allahu ai-Malik allfaqq (at 20:114
and 20:116) and Allahu Huwa al.fiaqq. The other places are 18:44, 22:6, 22:62 and 31:30.
WATT'S TREATMENT OF AL-ZUHRi'S REPORT
(6) J><ll Y' ~ ) .:r .!.1.,)1 J)f L)lll
And that which has been sent down to you from your Lord is al-f;aqq." (34:6)
(7) J>-'11 yo y1.::5JI .y .!.1.,)1 ~ } L>lliJ
"And that which We have communicated to you of the Book is al-f;aqq." (35:31)
143
Thus, a reference to the Qur'an (as well as to the traditions) makes it clear that
the most frequent use of a l - ~ a q q is in the sense of Qur'anic wafty and that the
term, though undoubtedly an attribute of Allah, has never been used
independently to denote Allah. The expression fa )a 'ahu al-haqq or fa )a 'ahu al-haqq
in the account under discussion therefore means the coming of wary and not, as
Watt would have us believe, the appearance of Allah before the Prophet.
Having attempted to show from Al-Zuhri's account and surat ai-Nqjm that the
Prophet claimed to have a "vision" of Allah, Watt proceeds to state that if this
was "Muhammad's original interpretation of the vision, it could hardly have been
his final one, for it contradicts 6:103 which says 'sight reacheth not Him'."
1
In this
connection Watt also refers to 'qyah 11 of the surah (ai-Nqjm) which he quotes in
Bell's translation as "the heart did not falsify what it saw" and states that this 'qyah
was "perhaps added later."
2
One may easily detect that here Watt merely
reproduces Bell's views that Mul;ammad (p.b.h.) first claimed to have seen Allah
and then, as he realized his mistake, modified his position and introduced the
'qyah in question in the surah to give an impression of a spiritual or mental vision.
The premises on which these assumptions are based have already been examined
and shown to be untenable. It may once again be emphasized that neither
Al-Zuhri's account nor suarat ai-Nqjm speaks of a "vision of Allah", so that there
is no question of contradiction with another Qur'anic passage such as 6:103, nor
of subsequent modification in the 'qyahs of surat ai-Nqjm. The "vision" of Allah is
a groundless surmise, on which is based a further incorrect assumption of
contradiction and a still further conjecture of modification, all of which are wrong
and untenable.
It may be recalled that 'qyah 18 of surat ai-Nqjm, which speaks of the Prophet's
having seen with his own eyes (ba{ar) "one of the greatest signs of his Lord", runs
counter to the theory of mental or spiritual vision as also of a vision of Allah. Bell
silently passes over this 'qyah when he presents his theory. Watt, however,
undertakes to fill this lacuna in Bell's presentation and attempts to bring the 'qyah
in line with the theory of spiritual vision. Hence, referring to this 'qyah he
1
Watt, M. atM., 43.
2
Ibid.
observes that this "might be taken to mean that what Muhammad had seen was a
sign or symbol of the glory and majesty of God". Watt then relates it to '4Jah 11,
which he translates as "the heart did not falsify what it saw" and says that this
suggests "that while the eyes perceived the sign or symbol, the heart perceived the
thing symbolized." Thus, continues Watt, though Muhammad's (p.b.h.) original
interpretation of the "vision as a direct vision of God" was "not quite accurate, in
essentials he was not mistaken. Perhaps the verse ought to be translated: 'the
heart was not mistaken in respect of what he, the man saw."
1
The above remarks are clearly based on the faulty assumption that the Prophet
had "originally interpreted the vision as a direct vision of God". He did not do so;
nor does the passage of surat af-Nqjm bear that meaning. Hence there is no
conflict between the '4Jahs of the surah and therefore no need to advance such an
interpretation as would bring them into agreement. The interpretation is in fact
an unwarranted twist in the meaning of the 'qyah 11, for Watt says: "while the
eyes perceived the sign or symbol, the heart perceived the thing symbolized", that
is, Allah. This '4Jah in no way suggests that the eyes perceived one thing, that is a
sign of Affah, and the heart saw or perceived another thing, that is Allah. The plain
meaning of the '4Jah is that the heart and the eyes were in unison - it was no
mistake of the heart, that is, no mistaken impression of the Prophet's about what
he saw with his eyes. "The heart was not mistaken", as Watt translates it
alternatively, "in respect of what he, the man saw." The whole emphasis is on the
very antithesis of a mental or spiritual vision.
Watt's aim in giving this twist in the sense is, as he plainly states, "to avoid
making it a vision of Gabriel, which would be unhistorical, and also to avoid
contradicting the view of Islamic orthodoxy that Muhammad had not seen
God. "
2
The question arises: why this eagerness to prove that it was not Jibril who
appeared before the Prophet, if the clear meaning of the passage of surat af-Nqjm
is, as Watt and Bell would have us believe, that Mul;lammad (p.b.h.) originally
mistook it to be a direct vision of God and subsequently rectified the mistake by
giving the impression of a mental vision? Watt's avowed object rather betrays an
awareness on his part of the fact that the interpretation he puts on the passage of
surat af-Nqjm is not quite its plain meaning. Also the reason given, namely, that a
vision of Jibril "would be unhistorical", is clearly based on the old plea that Jibril
is not mentioned by name in the Makkan passages of the Qur'an. That plea has
1
Watt, M. atM., 43.
2
Ibid.
already been shown to be untenable and incorrect.
1
The plea is also inconsistent
on Watt's part; for, unlike Bell, he does not seem to hold the view that the
traditions should not be taken into consideration in this connection. Watt
recognizes that there is clear mention of Jibril in Al-Zuhri's report, particularly in
what he puts in his passages D and I. Watt attempts to get rid of these passages
by observing that the mention of Jibril therein is suspicious, thus implying that
those parts of the report have been tampered with by subsequent narrators. The
implication is also inconsistent with the very ground on which he prefers this
version of Al-Zuhri's report, namely, that it has not been rewritten as, according
to him, has Ibn been. If subsequent reporters had modified those portions
of the report, they would have modified also its initial part where the coming of
the truth is mentioned; for, according to Watt, that term means the appearance of
God before the Prophet and that is contrary to what he calls the Islamic
orthodoxy. The fact is that neither those parts of the report that mention Jibril are
later interpolations, nor does the coming of the truth mean the appearance of
Allah. It may also be recalled that the passage of surat ai-Nqjm is not the only
Qur'anic information regarding the coming of wapy to the Prophet and that the
passage should be understood in combination with similar passages in the Qur'an,
particularly 81:19-23, as explained earlier.
2
Watt is of course aware of the existence of other Qur'anic passages in this
respect. Before noticing how he deals with them it is necessary to refer to the
second motive in his above mentioned interpretation of the passage of surat
ai-Nqjm, namely, as he says, "to avoid contradicting the view of Islamic orthodoxy
that Muhammad had not seen God." A glance at the previous chapter of the
present work would make it clear that this statement of Watt's is based on the
totally groundless assumption of Bell that the so-called orthodox Islamic belief in
this respect was a development subsequent to the time of the Prophet's and that
it is at variance with what Bell thinks the Qur'anic testimony to the effect that
(p.b.h.) had originally claimed to have seen Allah. The question thus
once again turns upon the interpretation of the surat ai-Nqjm, and once again it
should be pointed out that the interpretation given by Bell and Watt is wrong.
As regards the other Qur'anic passages bearing on the question Watt disposes
of them by invoking the opinion of Karl Ahrens who says that there is no
mention of Jibril in the Makkan passages of the Qur'an, that the rasul karim of
1
Supra, pp. 124-125.
2
Supra, pp. 118-120.
81:19 was originally identified with a i - r f i ~ , and that angels are mentioned in the
Makkan passages in the plural only. Watt also calls attention in this connection to
26:193- "with which hath come down the Faithful Spirit" - and says that this
would "fit in with the view here developed",
1
that is, the view that the Prophet
had a spiritual vision of God.
Karl Ahrens is right in saying that the rasui karfm of 81:19 is identifiable with
a i - r f i ~ (as in 97:4); but it is not correct that ai-rfil; or ai-rup ai-'amin (the faithful
spirit) is other than Jibril or that it fits in with the view of a spiritual vision of
God. Nor is it correct that angels are mentioned only in the plural in the Makkan
passages of the Qur'an.
2
Let us now consider the three Qur'anic passages cited here, namely, 81:19,
97:4 and 26:193. As regards the first passage/ four points need to be noted
carefully. (a) The rasui karim (noble messenger) here is mentioned specifically as a
conveyer of the Qur'anic wa!!J. (b) The very fact that he is described as a noble
messenger militates against his being identical with God; he is simply His
messenger. (c) The same nature of his is emphasized in the immediately
following 'qyah , 81:20, wherein it is said that he has his position "near the Lord of
the Throne". That means he is not in any way to be confused with the "Lord of
the Throne" (i.e. God). It is further stated in this 'qyah that he is a possessor of
strength ( dhi quwwah). The similarity of this phrase with the description "strong in
power" (shadid ai-quwa) in surat ai-Nqjm is striking. (d) He is described in the next
'qyah, 81:21, as "one obeyed" (mutd) and "faithful" ('amin). As he is not the Lord
of the Throne, the expression "one obeyed" must have reference to the others
like him who obeyed him, i.e., he has only a position of primacy among his
compeers. In other words, he is some one "special" among a group of similar
beings. It is also noteworthy that the adjective 'amin is strikingly the same as
given to ai-rnb in 26:193- "the faithful spirit". Karl Ahrens, and with him Watt,
agree in saying that the rasui karfm of 81:19 is identifiable with ai-rfil;. Thus, by the
internal evidence of the passage 81:19-21 and by their admission the rasui karfm is
the same as ai-rfil; ai- 'amin and he is different from God and, moreover, is a
conveyer of wabJ.
As regards the second passage, 97:4, the expression here is of course simply
ai-rfil; along with ai-maia'ikah (the angels). Karl Ahrens and Watt seem to imply
1
Watt, M. atM., 43.
2
See for instance Q. 6:8,9:50, 11:12, 11:31, 12:31, 17:95,32:11,53:26 and 69:178.
3
See also supra, pp. 118-120.
WATT'S TREATMENT OF AL-ZUHRI'S REPORT 147
that al-rnl; is different in nature from al-mald'ikah; but that is not correct. It is a
recognized style in Arabic language to mention the special one (kha!) separately
from a general body of a particular group when they are to be mentioned
together. Instances of such mention of the kha! separately along with the general
body ('am) are numerous in Arabic literature. But apart from this rule of the
Arabic language, the internal evidence of the passage clearly marks out to
be different from God; for the sentence says that the angels (al-mald'ikah) and
come down "by permission of their Lord" (bi-'idhn rabbihim). Therefore, the
Lord of both the angels and al-rnl; is different from them. Clearly here is not
identical with the Lord. And as he is mentioned specially along with the angels, he
and they all coming down by permission of their Lord, the unavoidable meaning
is that he, al-rnb, is a special one of them. And since the rasul karfm in 81:19 is
marked out as a special one and as the conveyer of wab.J, and since both Karl
Ahrens and Watt agree in saying that the rasul karfm is identical with he is
the same being who brings wab.J and who is an angel. The identification of the
rasul karfm as an angel is supported by 31:1 which speaks of Allah's employing
messengers from among the angels. It is also to be noted that while the
reference here is to the taking of angels as messengers in general, it is only a
particular messenger in the singular who is always spoken of as the conveyer of
waf:!y.
Similarly the third passage, 26:193, clearly mentions "the faithful spirit" as the
one who brings down wakJ ( nazala bihi al-rnl; a!- 'amfn). For the same reasons as
stated above this a!- 'amfn is the same as the rasul karfm, who is described as
'amfn (faithful) and as the conveyer of wai!J. The internal evidence here also
distinguishes a!- 'amfn from God; for, in the previous 'qyah, 26:192, the
Qur'an (or Qur'anic wal;y) is spoken of as "tan:ifl, i.e., something sent down, by
the Lord of all the worlds" (wa innahu la-taniJ1 rabb al-'alamfn ). The causative
nature of the expression tan:ifl shows clearly that the "Lord of all the worlds" sent
it down, not that He came down with it. The succeeding 'qyah, 26:193, clarifies
the position further and says that it is al-rnb a!- 'amfn who came down with it.
Thus the rasul karfm and al-rnl; a!- 'amfn, both of whom are mentioned as the
conveyer of wal!J, are one and the same individual. That he is an angel is shown
by (a) the mention of al-rnl; along with angels as a special one among them (i.e. in
70:4, 78:38 and 97:4); (b) the mention of angels as having been employed as
messengers by Allah (as in 35:1); (c) the mention of the conveyer of waf!y as a noble
messenger, i.e., a special one from among the angels who are taken as messenger;
(d) the specific mention of him by name, Jibril, as the conveyer of wahy in 2:97
and (e) the mention of him by name in the traditions also as the conveyer of wai!J.
The name Jibril of course occurs only three times in the Madinan passages of
the Qur'an; but that does not mean that there is no reference to him in the
Makkan passages. Nor that someone else is spoken of as the conveyer of wai!J in
the Makkan passages. For one thing, the expressions a/-rtlh or al'amtn, not to
speak of the rasul karim, can by no stretch of the imagination be taken in the
Christian sense of the Spirit or Holy Spirit, which is what Watt seems to suggest.
The expressions al-rnh
1
a/-'amtn and rill; al-qudus occur some 21 times in the
Qur'an.
1
In none of the places it is used in the sense of Allah or His attribute. In
six out of the twenty-one places it is used in connection with 'Isa (Jesus) and his
mother Maryam;
2
but at each of these places it has the meaning of either the spirit
of life or the angel (Jibril). In any case, at none of these places is the word
coterminous with the Divine Being; for the unmistakable tenor and purport of
each of the passages is to contradict the concept of the Trinity or to deny the
supposed divinity of 'Isa.
3
B. "THE VISIT TO HIRA'; TAijANNUTH'
After presenting his views about what he calls "Muhammad's visions" Watt
passes on to the second of his sub-titles: "The visit to .f:Iira'; taf;annuth". It must
not be supposed that the subject of the "visions" is left behind. It indeed forms a
constant theme in all the sections of his treatment of the subject; and Watt's aim
is all along to suggest that the "vision", indeed wai!J, is something mental,
psychological or psycho-intellectual to the Prophet.
As regards the visit to I;Iira' and tahannuth, Watt differs from his preceptor Bell
who denies the authenticity of the reports about them. Watt says that there "is no
improbability in Muhammad's going to I;Iira. "
4
He then presents what one scholar
very aptly calls "a compound version of the views " of others.
5
Watt states that
Mul).ammad's (p.b.h.) going to I:Iira' "might be a method of escaping from the
1
Q. 2:87; 2:253; 4:171; 5:110; 16:2; 15:29 16:102; 17:85 (two times); 19:17; 21:91; 26:193; 32:9; 38:72; 40:15; 42:51;
58:22;66:12; 70:4; 78:38 and 97:4.
2
Q. 2:87; 2:253; 4:171; 5:110; 21:91; 66:12.
3
See for a detailed discussion on rllh IBN AL-QAYYIM, Kitdb al-RHh, Hyderabad, 1324 H. See for its summary in M. W ,
1935, pp. 129-144. Cf. D. B. MACDONAW, "The development of the idea of spirit in Islam", M.W, 1932, pp. 25-42 and
153-168.
4
WArr, M. atM., 44.
' See M.J. KISTER, An Enquiry into the meaning of a term", B.S.O.A.S., XXXI, 1968, p.229.
heat of Mecca in an unpleasant season for those who could not afford to go to
at-'f:i'if." Having said that Watt adds immediately: "Judaeo-Christian influence,
such as the example of monks, or a little personal experience" would have shown
Muhammad (p.b.h.) "the need and desirability of solitude."
1
Watt's two consecutive sentences quoted above in fact represent two different
views. The first view, that the resort to Ij.id.' was something of a poor man's
summer holiday was first suggested by Aloy Sprenger in the mid-nineteenth
century.
2
Ever since he had made that suggestion, however, no European writer
of note adopted that view or treated it as a reasonable explanation of the affair.
Watt, however, adopts and reproduces it, without referring to Sprenger in any
way. Neither Sprenger nor Watt asks himself the very pertinent questions whether
the climate of I:fir:i' differs in any way from that of the town of Makka in any
season and why, of all the neighbouring hills, Hid.' in particular should have been
chosen as the supposed summer resort? If they had asked themselves these
preliminary questions about the geography of Makka they would surely have
given a second thought to this novel suggestion of theirs.
The second view, that of J udaeo-Christian influence, specially the instance of
Christian monks, suggesting "the need and desirability of solitude", is indeed the
suggestion of a number of Watt's predecessors, notably J. Herschfield
3
and Tor
Andrae.
4
The unsoundness of the general assumption of Judaeo-Christian
influence upon the evolution of Mul).ammad's (p.b.h.) thought has been noted
earlier.
5
It may be observed here, however, that the two views thus put forth in
two consecutive sentences are incompatible. If the retirement at I;tir:i' was a sort
of a summer holiday, there is no need to invoke Judaeo-Christian influence in the
matter. If, on the other hand, it was done in imitation of the practice of the
Christian monks, the summer holiday theory is both unnecessary and irrelevant.
After having made the above noted remarks about the retirement at I:fir:i'
Watt refers to the origin and meaning of the term t a ~ a n n u t h . In doing so he
generally follows what Bell and Herschfield suggest, namely, that the term means
either prayer for God's favour or "doing some work to escape from sin or crime".
Watt then proceeds to "fill out hypothetically", as he says, the account of what
actually transpired. He says that Mul).ammad (p.b.h.) had, from an early age, been
1
WATI,M. atM., 44.
2
A. SPRENGER, Da.r Leben 11nd die Lehre de.r Mohammed, !, Berlin, 1860, pp. 295-296.
' H. HERSCHFILED, New Re.rearche.r into the Compo.rition and Exege.rir of the Qoran, London, 1902, p. 10.
4
ToR ANDRAE, Mohammed, Sein L!ben HndGiaHbe, Gottingen, 1932, pp. 34-35.
5
S11pra, Chapter II.
aware of the social and religious problems of Makka. His being an orphan made
him all the more alive to those problems. He also imbibed the "vague
monotheism found among the most enlightened Makkans." He also looked for
some reform "and all the circumstances suggested that this reform must be
primarily religious." In this state of mind he "deliberately sought solitude to
reflect on Divine things and to perform some acts of worship, perhaps an
expiation for sins."
1
Watt thus in effect himself nullifies what he says previously about summer
holidaying by Mu.Q.ammad (p.b.h.) and his probable imitation of the practice of
the Christian monks. For, if he looked for some kind of reform in Makka and if
"all the circumstances suggested that this reform must be primarily religious" and
therefore he "deliberately sought solitude to reflect on Divine things" etc., both
the surmises are unnecessary to explain (p.b.h.) solitary retirement
to I:Iira'. Watt's remarks are, however, based on two distinct suggestions by
his predecessors, notably by Muir and Margoliouth. The one is the suggestion of
ambition and preparation on Mu.Q.ammad's (p.b.h.) part to play the role of a
prophet-reformer.
2
The other is the theory that the political, religious and cultural
situation in Arabia and the neighbouring Christian Byzantine state suggested that
the contemplated reform should take on a religious character and that therefore
(p.b.h.) decided to assume the role of a prophet. Also the remark
that in his retirement he probably performed some act in "expiation of sins" is
reminiscent of the Muir-Margoliouth views about his previous beliefs and
practices.
All these views are faulty and debatable. The Prophet did of course retire into
the cave of J::Iira' to reflect on Divine things; but there is no indication in the
sources that he did so for discovering a framework for his contemplated
socio-religious reform. Watt's story, as he himself points out, is hypothetical and,
as we have pointed out, based in essence on the views of his predecessors.
Whatever the Prophet's motive in seeking solitude at I:Iira', the coming of the
revelation to him was by all accounts something sudden and unexpected. His
bewilderment at what happened at Bid' and the subsequent consultation with
Waraqah ibn Nawfal only emphasize this unexpectedness and unpreparedness on
the Prophet's part. These facts thus run directly counter to the assumption of
contemplated reform, indeed of ambition and preparation. In order to sustain the
1
Watt, M. atM., 44.
2
Supra, Chapter I.
theory of contemplated reform it is necessary therefore to dismantle the fact of
the suddenness of the affair, or at least to create doubt about it. This is exactly
what Watt seems to aim at. Thus, immediately after having hypothetically filled
out the account, he observes that though the traditional accounts "suggest that
the vision came during the retreat", the "comparative dates of the different
features of Muhammad's call are uncertain. Sometimes the appearance is said to
be unexpected, and sometimes Khadijah seems to have been not far away."
1
It should at once be pointed out that whatever may be the uncertainty about
what is called "the comparative dates of the different features" of the call, there is
no uncertainty whatsoever about the order of its main features, nor about its
suddenness and unexpectedness. By all the accounts the "call" took place in the
wake of the retirement at Hid' and the "appearance" or "vision" was a
simultaneous, indeed an inseparable feature of the call. Whether Khadijah (r.a.)
was near the Prophet at I:Iira', as stated in one of the reports reproduced by Ibn
Ishaq, or the Prophet was at home near her, as said in the version of Al-Zuhri's
report quoted by Watt, the "appearance [of Jibril] was in every case sudden and
unexpected. It is not "sometimes" that "the appearance is said to be unexpected";
it is always so in the reports. The emphasis on the suddenness and
unexpectedness of the "call" and the "vision" is constant throughout all the
reports in all their versions, despite their differences in matters of detaiL Watt
himself uses this sudden appearance of "the truth", as we have seen just a little
while ago, to support his assumption of the "vision of God". But now he realizes
that the facts of the suddenness of the "call" and the "vision", and the consequent
bewilderment and uncertainty on the Prophet's part are strongly against the
theory of his having planned and contemplated socio-religious reforms. Hence
Watt attempts to create doubt about the suddenness of the "call" and to show
that it was something independent of the "vision". In fact, in the remaining
sections of his discussion on the subject Watt isolates the "vision" from the "call"
and suggests that the Prophet, though he was uncertain about his position,
nonetheless continued to receive revelations and to give them out to the public
for about three years when, after the period of Jatrah and of "secret" preaching he
saw the "visions" or the first "vision".
2
1
WAIT, M. atM., 44.
2
See below, text.
C. "THOU ART THE MESSENGER OF GOD"
Watt thus takes up the subjects of "the call" and the "visions" under his above
mentioned third sub-title. He starts by saying that in B, C, D and I of "the
passages from az-Zuhri" the words "Thou art the Messenger of God" occur four
times- in the first passage the speaker is "the truth", in the second "merely 'he"'
and in the last Jibril. He then says that the circumstances are different in the four
passages and raises the question whether these are "four versions of one event,
that somehow or other have developed different features?" Watt observes that
the mention of Jibril "at this early stage" is "suspicious" since he "is not
mentioned in the Qur'an until much later" and adds that the "experiences"
described in the passages belong to two types - those in the first two (B & C )
describe Mul)ammad's (p.b.h.) "original call to be a Messenger", and those in the
other two ( D & I) "appear to be reaffirmation of this to assure him in a time of
anxiety."
1
It is to be noted once again that what Watt calls "the passages from az-Zuhri"
are in fact passages made by Watt out of Al-Zuhri's rather continuous account.
By making such divisions in the text Watt has thought, or attempted to show, that
the "speakers" in the passages B through D and further on are different. As noted
above, neither the context, nor the grammatical rules of the language support this
assumption. The speaker is throughout Jibril. Similarly the plea that the mention
of Jibril at this stage is suspicious because he is not mentioned in the Qur'an until
much later is also untenable. It is also inconsistent with Watt's own approach; for
he reproduces only Al-':fabari's version of Al-Zuhri's report to the exclusion of all
the other versions on the ground that it has not been "rewritten", i.e., modified by
others. His now casting doubt on part of this version and, indeed, his reliance on
the Qur'anic evidence only regarding Jibril, which he also misconceives, is
glaringly inconsistent.
Watt's purpose is, however, to isolate "the call" from the "vision". Hence,
immediately after having made the above mentioned statements he begins
another paragraph by asking: "If B refers to the original call, what is its relation to
the visions?" The question is clearly confusing. The passage B, as Watt has
hitherto said, describes the "appearance" or the "vision" and he has attempted to
suggest a little while ago that "the truth" mentioned in it should be understood in
the sense of God. But now he slips away from that position and attempts to
1
Watt, M. atM., 45.
WAITS TREATMENT OF AL-ZUHRi'S REPORT
153
suggest that the passage only describes the original call to be a Messenger,
implying that this is different from the "vision" so that the relationship between
the two should be determined. It should at once be pointed out that what he calls
a description of the "original call" is nothing but what happened in the "vision"
described in the passage B. His question thus really amounts to a queer one,
namely, "What is the relation of the vision to the vision?"
After putting the above mentioned question Watt refers to the passage of
sura! ai-Najm ( 53:1-18) and reiterates in effect what Bell says in this connection,
namely, that the description of "the first vision" in that surah was given out in
response to the Makkan unbelievers' objections to the genuineness of the
revelations and that therefore at least one or several revelations had been
proclaimed before the narration of the vision in that surah. Watt says further that
the vision which was narrated "must have something to do" with the receipt of
revelations; yet, "there is nothing to show that the receiving of specific passages
accompanied the vision ... "
1
In making this last statement Watt obviously changes his ground again, and
that in two ways. He slips away from the Qur'anic evidence and seems to
concentrate only on the evidence of the report he cites. Secondly, he now also
implies that the passage B of that report describes a "vision" but does not
mention the delivery of any specific passage; for, otherwise, there is no ground
for his making the statement that "there is nothing to show that the receiving of
specific passages accompanied the vision."
Now, the text which Watt assigns to the passage B and which he seems to
have in view does of course only speak about the entity's addressing Mu};lammad
(p.b.h.) as "thou art the Messenger of God" and does not mention the delivery of
any specific Qur'anic passage. But, as already pointed out, Watt's passages A toG
are all continuous in Al-Zuhri's account as given in Al-'fabari, and the narration
up to the end of passage E speaks of the different circumstances attending the
"call" and the delivery of the iqra' passage. In Watt's own translation the passage
starts thus: "Then he said, Recite. I said, I cannot recite ... " The expression "Then
he" unmistakably relates to Jibril who is mentioned in the previous passage D.
Watt of course doubts the mention of Jibril at this stage; but he (Watt) does not,
and cannot, deny that the passage D speaks of an "appearance" or "vision" and
that both the passages D and E together speak of a "vision" and the delivery of
I Ibid.
the iqra' passage which, elsewhere, Watt recognizes to be the first Qur'anic
passage to be delivered.
1
Thus, his statement that "there is nothing to show that
the receiving of specific passages accompanied the vision" is untenable and
contrary to the very evidence he relies on.
The statement is contrary also to the Qur'anic evidence; for whatever may be
the view of Bell and Watt about the entity appearing in the "vision" described in
surat al-Nrym, it categorically says that it was that entity, the shadtd al-quwa and dhU
mi17"ah, who drew nearer than "two bow-lengths" and delivered to the Prophet
what he was giving out as waP.J ('qyahs 4-10). The same fact is emphasized in
81:19-23 which says that it was a "saying" ( q a w ~ , i.e., a text, which was delivered
by the "noble messenger" whom the Prophet had seen in "the clear horizon".
Both the passages speak of a past event, and their reference is clearly to the initial
waf.!y which the Prophet had given out to the Makkans and which both the
passages emphasize was delivered by the entity he saw.
Also, the other versions of Al-Zuhri's report, particularly that in Bukhiirt,
clearly speak of the delivery of the iqra' passage by Jibril who appeared before the
Prophet for the purpose. Watt withholds from his readers this and other versions
of the report. In fact by doing so, and by all the other devices, namely, by
arbitrarily dividing the version which he cites into so many artificial passages, by
isolating the "call" from the "vision", by raising the queer question of their
relationship and by making the untenable statement that no specific text was
delivered during the "vision" Watt drives at his predecessors' main theory that the
Qur'anic revelation was not verbal but only in the nature of suggestions or ideas
that came to the Prophet. Hence he further states that the "practical outcome of
the vision" would be something like a "conviction that the passages were
messages from God" and that the Prophet "was called upon to proclaim them
publicly."
2
Note the expression: "the passages were messages from God"; that is, the
passages themselves were not from God, but only their messages were so. It is
not explained by Watt how the "messages" could have been received prior to the
"vision", nor why Mul).ammad (p.b.h.), before he was even sure that they were
from God, should have formulated them into "passages". Nor does Watt mention
any such pre-vision passage. He simply argues backward from his assumption,
namely, that since the "vision" imparted a "conviction that the passages were
I Ibid.
2
Ibid., 45.
WATT'S TREATMENT OF AL-ZUHRI'S REPORT
155
messages from God", this "would presuppose that Muhammad had already
received some revelations" but had not been sure about their nature; "now he is
informed or given an assurance about that. "
1
One may easily detect that this is
merely a repetition, in another form, of the Muir-Margoliouth theory of the
Prophet's having received other pre-Qur'anic revelations prior to the iqra'
passage.
2
"Alternatively", continues Watt, "the vision might be taken as a call to seek
revelations, and Muhammad might have known something about methods of
inducing them." The theory of "inducing" of revelations, it may be recalled, is
Margoliouth's.
3
He of course relates it to the physical hardships and other
symptoms that at times attended the coming of revelations to the Prophet. Watt
does not refer to Margoliouth and introduces the allegation at the first
opportunity, that of the beginning of the "call" and the "vision", with the absurd
implication that Mu]:lammad (p.b.h.), before he hardly began his mission, had
already "known something of methods of inducing" revelations!
Watt does not, however, press this suggestion here; for, as we shall see
presently, he reverts to it subsequently.
4
After having simply introduced the
allegation he observes that "the former of the alternatives", that is, the outcome
of the vision being only a conviction that the "passages" were "messages" from
God, "is more probable"; for it is in line with the view, and here Watt specifically
cites Bell, "that what was inspired or suggested to him was a 'practical line of
conduct' which he in fact followed."
5
It may at once be pointed out that it is not
only this particular expression, but the whole theory that the Qur'anic wab.J does
not mean verbal communication of a text, but "suggestion", or "inspiration", etc.,
which is Bell's and others' and which Watt simply undertakes to substantiate by
some means or other. So far as this particular view is concerned, however, its
untenability has been demonstrated earlier.
6
Watt finally says that if "the purport of the vision was something general",
that would agree with passage B. He then says that the words "Thou art the
Messenger of God" were probably "not an exterior locution", nor even "an
imaginative locution, but an intellectual locution", meaning that it was a
1
Ibzd.
2
Supra, pp. 93-96, 114-117.
' Supra, p.100.
4
Infra, ch. VI I.
5
WATT, M. atM., 45.
' Supra, pp. 122-133.
which was made "without words". The form of the words may
even be much later than the actual vision."
1
These statements in fact constitute an admission on Watt's part that the
"original call" and the "vision" are not really two distinct events, as he has
hitherto implied, but are aspects of the same incident described in passage B. And
as he recognizes this, he realizes that the "expression "Thou art the Messenger of
God", though not a passage of the Qur'an, nonetheless consists of "words"
constituting a statement which was communicated to the Prophet during the
"vision" described in the passage B. Hence he hastens to say that these words
were probably "an intellectual locution". Now, observe his peculiar logic. He
asserts that there is nothing to show that the communication of any specific text
accompanied the "vision"; but now that he cannot deny that the passage B, which
he has isolated from the rest of the account, also speaks of the communication of
some "words", he tells his readers that these "words" were communicated
"without words"- an intellectual locution! The fact is that his statement that the
communication of no specific text accompanied the "vision" is belied and
contradicted even by his passage B. Moreover, by saying that the "form of the
words may even be much later than the actual vision" he makes an arbitrary
assumption which is nowhere warranted by the sources, neither directly nor
indirectly. In doing so he also casts doubt on the authenticity of his passage B. As
we have seen, he casts doubt on passages D and I because they mention Jibril
which fact does not fit in with his assumption. Now he implies incorrectness even
on his passage B because there is the mention of the communication of "Thou art
the Messenger of God", which fact contradicts his other assumption. Yet he
would have us believe that his assumptions are supported by these very passages!
Even after such manoeuvres Watt cannot escape the fact that the iqra' passage,
including his passages D and E, was by all accounts communicated during the
"vision". Hence he proceeds to deal with it under his fourth sub-heading which is
as follows.
D. "RECITE"
Under this sub-heading Watt attempts to make three points in three successive
paragraphs. In the first he refers to what he calls the "numerous versions of the
tradition" regarding the revelation of sural a/- 'alaq and then, with reference to
1
WAIT, op.dt., 45-46. He refers here to the work of A Poulain and to section 5 of his chapter where the expression
"intellectual locution" is explained.
Al-Zuhri's account, says that the words ma aqra'u occurring therein "must be
translated 'I cannot read (or recite)"'; for there is the variant, ma 'ana bi-qari'in in
other versions and because, also, Ibn Hisham makes a distinction between ma
'aqra'u and ma dha 'aqra'u, the latter expression meaning "What shall I recite?"
Having said this Watt asserts: "This latter is also the more natural meaning forma
aqra'u." In support of this statement he levels an allegation against the
traditionists in general saying: "It is almost certain that the later traditionists
avoided the natural meaning of the words" in order to sustain the "dogma that
Muhammad could not write, which was an important part of the proof of the
miraculous nature of the Qur'an."
1
He also cites 'AbdAllah ibn Shaddad's report
given in Al-Tabari's tajsfr saying that that "text requires that the ma be taken as
'what', since it is preceded by 'and'."
2
In the second paragraph Watt reproduces Bell's views that the words qara'a
and qur'an are taken from the religious vocabulary of the Syrian Christians and
that Qur'an means "reading" and "Scripture lesson".
3
Watt adds that while the
verb 'iqra' "later came to mean "read", in this surah it presumably means 'recite
from memory', namely, from the memory of what had been supernaturally
communicated to him. "
4
Then, in the last paragraph of his text under this sub-heading Watt says that
there "are no effective objections to the almost universal view of Muslim scholars
that this is the first of the Qur'an to be revealed". He then interprets this passage
as "a command to worship" and, differing from Bell, who says that the passage
was revealed when the Prophet had already gathered some followers, says that "it
may very well belong to a stage before he began to preach to others."
Nevertheless, insists Watt, the "possibility cannot be excluded" that the Prophet
"had already received other passages which he did not regard as part of the
Qur'an; one example would be the words in the traditions "Thou art the
Messenger of God. "
5
Now, as regards the first point, it is clear that all that Watt says in this
connection is indeed to discredit the fact that the Prophet could not read or write.
The question of his illiteracy and the orientalists' views about it, including the
views of Watt, have already been discussed.
6
It may only be pointed out here that
1
Ibzd., 46.
2
Ibid.
' Ibid., 47, citing Bell, Origin etc., 90 ff.
4
Watt, op.cit., 47.
' Ibid.
the allegation of the later traditionists' having avoided what is called the "natural
meaning" of the words md 'aqra'u is totally unwarranted. Nor is it a fact that the
so-called "dogma" about the Prophet's illiteracy is a later development. The
Qur'an itself states: wa ma kunta tatlu min qablihi min kitdb wa ld takhuffuhu
bi-:Jaminika idhan lartdba al-mubtilun , meaning: "You were not used before this (i.e.
the giving out of the Qur'an) to reading any book, nor to writing it with your
right hand. In that case the detractors could have reason for doubting." (29:48).
What is called the "dogma" about the Prophet's illiteracy is thus based on this and
other clear statements of the Qur'an itself. The dogma is in no wcry a later
invention. Also, it is not true to say that the later traditionists avoided the
so-called natural meaning of the words. Many of them indeed considered the
different versions and the differences in the meanings of the expressions. Watt
himself, as seen a little earlier, cites one such different meaning given in the
commentary of Al-Tabari. Watt's insistence of what he calls the natural meaning
of the words seems to have arisen from a confusion about the negative md and
the interrogative md in the two versions.
What Watt says in his first paragraph is in effect rendered irrelevant by what
he says in his second paragraph dealing with the origin and meaning of 'iqra'. We
need not dilate here on the question whether the terms 'iqra' and Qur'an are
derived from the religious vocabulary of the Syrian Christians. Even according to
Bell, whom he quotes, Qur'an means "reading" or "Scripture lesson". But if, as
Watt would have us believe, the verb 'iqra' only "later came to mean 'read"', and if
this passage of sura! a/- 'alaq is only a command to the Prophet to "recite from
memory" what "had been communicated to him supernaturally", then the whole
of Watt's previous remarks about the Prophet's illiteracy and the allegations
against the traditionists are both irrelevant and unnecessary; for no reading or
writing capacity is called for if the task is simply to recite from memory.
Obviously, Watt first assumes the meaning of reading for the verb and on that
basis makes his above mentioned comments. He then changes his ground, rejects
that meaning for the word and suggests that it only means a command to recite
from memory, etc. Once again, he does not explain how Mul;ammad (p.b.h.)
received the supernatural communications prior to the communication of the
'iqra' passage, and what were those supposed pre- 'iqra' passages or "messages for
the passages" that were required to be recited from memory. Clearly, Watt simply
1
Supra, pp. 15-25.
WATI'S TREATMENT OF AL-ZUHRI'S REPORT 159
reiterates in another form the old assumption of the receipt of revelations by the
Prophet prior to what is called the "vision".
But once again Watt somewhat contradicts in his third paragraph what he says
in the second. He states that there is no effective objections to the view that the
'iqra' passage was the first of the Qur'an to be revealed. A strict adherence to this
statement requires the rejection of the suggestion that there were pre-'iqra'
passages revealed to the Prophet. Watt seems to have recognized the difficulty
arising out of this last statement of his. Hence he attempts to escape from it in
two ways. He interprets the passage to mean that it formed "a command to
worship" and that it may "very well belong to a stage before" the Prophet began
to preach to others. Secondly, Watt insists at the end of the paragraph that
MuJ::tammad (p.b.h.) had of course "already received other messages which he did
not regard as part of the Qur'an", an example of that being the words "Thou art
the Messenger of God".
1
This last statement is obviously an attempt to side-track
the issue. The discussion here is about the receipt of pre- 'iqra' passages or
messages that formed part of the Qur'an and that the Prophet was supposedly
asked in the 'iqra' passage to recite from memory, and not about what Watt
recognizes to be no part of the Qur'an (reading' or 'Scripture lesson'). Moreover,
if wal;y, as he and his preceptor Bell suggest, was only "inspiration" or
"suggestion" for a "practical line of conduct" which the Prophet in fact followed,
that could not conceivably be something to be "recited from memory"! The
climax of contradictions comes, however, a couple of pages subsequently in
Watt's work where he states that the "vision" and the address "Thou art the
Messenger of God" took place not before the revelation of the 'iqra' passage but
some three years qfter the "original call" which, as Watt says here, is described in
his passage B of Al-Zuhri's account!
E. "SURAT AL-MUDDAffiTHIR: THE FATRAH'
Watt then passes on to his fifth sub-title. He starts this section by referring to
Jabir ibn 'Abd Allah al-'Ansari's tradition which says that the opening 'qyahs of
surat ai-Muddaththirwere the first revelation. Watt states that this could have been
so only "if Muhammad entered abruptly on his public ministry without any
period of preparation"; for the passage contains the words "Rise and Warn",
whereas the 'iqra' passage does not contain any such directive and does not
therefore "imply a public ministry". He therefore observes that "the most
1
Watt, op.cit., 47.
probable view" is that the passage of sural ai-Muddalhlhir "marks the beginning of
public ministry". In support of this statement he cites what Ibn Isl).aq says that
the Prophet was ordered after three years of his commission to declare openly
what had come to him from Allah.
1
As another evidence Watt refers to the
tradition which says that for the first three years it was the angel "Asrafil" [Israfil]
who, in Watt's word, "mediated" the revelation to the Prophet. In this connection
Watt refers to "fatrah or gap in the revelation" and says that "az-Zuhri introduces
the fatrah in order to reconcile this tradition with the view that sural a/- 'alaq came
first. ,a
The distinction made by Watt between the "non-public ministry" and "public
ministry" is clearly based on the distinction made by the Muslim scholars between
nubuwwah ( call to Prophethood) and risalah ( commission to preach). Muslim
scholarly opinion is also more or less unanimous in saying that the opening
passage of sural ai-Muddalhlhir marks the inception of risalah. But the identification
of this distinction with what Ibn says about open preaching and with the
Israfil tradition is misleading. Ibn statement is made not with reference to
the distinction between nubuwwah and risalah but with reference to what he
suggests to be the initial period of unobtrusive or private preaching followed by
the period of open preaching. The work of preaching is implied in both the
periods. Nor does he relate his statement with the revelation of sural
ai-Muddalhlhir but with two other passages of the Qur'an (i.e., 15:94 and 26:214).
It may be noted that his characterization of the initial period as a period of secret
preaching is not based on any specific authority, but on the vague assertion of
"what we have come to know" (.ft ma balaghand). Both aspects of his statement,
namely, the nature of the initial period of preaching and its length need
re-examination in the light of the other relevant facts.
Watt makes a mistake in taking Ibn Isl).aq's statement as having been made
with reference to the distinction between what is called ministry" and
"public ministry". He seems to realize the difficulty arising out of this
identification. Hence he states that "the precise nature of the difference" between
the two, that is non-public and public ministry, "is more difficult to say, since the
first converts are said to have been made during the first period." There is in fact
no difficulty in the matter. The difficulty is created by Watt's own faulty
identification and, to a greater extent, by a faulty English rendering of the
1
Ibid., 48. See also IBN HISHAM, I, 262.
2
Watt, op.cit., 48.
essentially technical terms nubuwwah and risalah as "non-public ministry" and
"public ministry" respectively. It is to be noted that nubuwwah is no "ministry" as
such. The use of this term only illustrates the risk involved in transferring
Christian theological terms to technical Islamic expressions.
The reference to the Israfil tradition in this connection is also inappropriate.
Whatever the tradition in question is worth, it relates neither to the distinction
between nubuwwah and nsalah nor to what is called the period of secret preaching.
It is also misleading to state, as Watt does, that the angel Israfil used to "mediate",
i.e., deliver, revelation to the Prophet for the first three years of his commission.
The text of the tradition simply says that Israfil was "attached" (qunna bz) to the
Prophet. There is no mention that that angel used to bring any wa!!J. On the
contrary it is specifically mentioned that the angel was so attached to the Prophet
prior to the coming of waf:y (qabla 'an y u ~ a 'ilayhz).
1
The tradition in question is,
however, mursal, i.e., its authority does not go up to the time of the Prophet.
Al-Waqidi, who also mentions this tradition, categorically states that it is not
reliable.
2
Having thus spoken of the distinction between the "non-public" and "public
ministry" Watt deals with the term ai-Muddaththir. He says that it is commonly
taken to mean "wrapped in dithtzr (or dathtzr), that is, a cloak" and that it had some
connection with the receiving of revelations. As such, he observes, the act of
being wrapped "may either be to induce revelations, or, more probably, to protect
the human recipient from the danger of Divine appearance." It must at once be
pointed out that in none of the traditions is the act of being wrapped indicated to
be what is called a means of "inducing revelations" or "to protect the human
recipient from the danger of the Divine appearance." Watt simply twists the term
to import in it the theory of "inducing revelations" and of "the vision of God".
More remarkable is Watt's suggestion about the metaphorical meaning of
ai-Muddathir. He says that it means "a man who is obscure and of no reputation"
and attempts to substantiate this implication by referring to what he calls "the
standards by which the rich Meccans judged" him as "a comparatively
unimportant person."
3
The allusion is obviously to the Qur'anic passage 43:31
wherein reference is made to the rich Makkans' attempt to belittle the Prophet
when he began to preach the truth to them. True, he was not one of the leaders
I AL-TABARi, TiJrfkh, I, 1249.
2
IBN SA'D, I, 191. Also quoted in AL-TABARi, op.cit.
' Watt, op.dt.,49.
of his society when "the call" took place; but the term al-Muddaththir by no means
implies "an obscure person". Nor was he in any way an "obscure" person before
"the call". It is common knowledge that a cognate word may acquire a
metaphorical sense. The rule in such a case is that the metaphorical meaning is
strictly confined to the particular form, and not to any other form or derivative
from the root, since the root word does not have that sense. Now, one of the
forms derived from dathar is dathUr. This form does sometime bear the sense of an
obscure person;
1
but it would be a violence to the rules of the language to transfer
that sense to another derivation such as muddaththir. In none of the standard
Arabic dictionaries is that sense given to this form. Moreover, it is quite contrary
to common sense that in the 'qyah under reference Allah would address His
Messenger in such a derogatory term, or that the Prophet would apply it to
himsel1
Thus having dealt with the question of "non-public" and "public ministry", the
period of fatrah and the meaning of al-muddaththir Watt "summarizes" the
"picture" as follows. He says that there was a "preparatory stage in Muhammad's
career as prophet, lasting three years." During this period he received the first
part of surat al-'Alaq, surat al-Puf;a and other revelations of "a more private
character". Watt again refers here to the Israfil tradition. He then says that the
Jatrah might be placed at the end of this period and that then the "visions" or the
first of them took place, together with the giving of the title "Messenger of God"
and the revelation of surat al-Muddaththir.
2
Thus does Watt completely reverse the position with which he started. He
started by saying that al-ruya al-[adiqah in the pre-.f:Iira' period was the same type
of "vision" as that experienced by the Prophet subsequently. Then Watt says that
the "vision" at I;Iira', which is described in passage B of Al-Zuhri's account, was a
"vision of God" because, among other things, there is the mention of a l - ~ a q q in
that connection, which he interprets as a reference to God. Then he states that
passage B describes the "original call" and implies that the "vision" was
something independent of "the call", taking place subsequently and that its
purport was something general, namely, reassuring the Prophet of his new
position and imparting to him the conviction that "the passages were messages
from God". Yet, on the basis of this supposed purport of the "vision" Watt says
that it would "fit in well with passage B", thereby once again implying that the
1
See Tdj ai-'ArlJ.r, III, 202.
2
WArr,op.dt, 49.
subject matter of that passage is "the vision" and that it was incidental to "the
original call". It is also on that basis that he asserts, a little while ago, that the
address "Thou art the Messenger of God" was the sort of non-Qur'anic
revelation which the Prophet had received prior to the receipt of the 'iqra'
passage. And now Watt completely reverses the position saying that even the
"first" vision took place after three years of the Prophet's career as such and that
the title Messenger of God was given then, that is, the communication "Thou art
the Messenger of God" took place not before that of the 'iqra' passage but long
after it!
These confusion and inconsistencies could easily have been averted if Watt
had not set his mind from the start to prove that the so-called "vision" and also
waf!y were only matters of the Prophet's mind and intellect, for which purpose
Watt has divided Al-Zuhri's rather continuous account into so many artificial
passages and, among other devices, has equated nubuwwah and risalah with
"non-public ministry" and "public ministry" respectively, identifying the former
with the so-called period of secret preaching mentioned by Ibn Ishaq and with
the dubious period of Israfil's alleged companionship with the Prophet. It is
because of this wrong identification that Watt finds it difficult to understand the
real nature of what he calls the period of non-public ministry because there were
"conversions before Muhammad publicly claimed to be God's Messenger". And
on account of this difficulty of his own creation Watt proceeds to entertain
"suspicion that too much is ascribed to the preparatory stage in the traditional
accounts."
1
If Watt had not attempted to misinterpret and "tendentially" shape
the sources for the above mentioned purpose he could have seen that despite the
variations in the reports "the call" and "the vision" took place simultaneously,
that the Qur'anic waf!y was verbal communication of specific texts, that the Jatrah
or pause in the coming of walzy was an event of the initial period, that it lasted not
for years but only for days or weeks and that the risalah or commission to preach
and the revelation of sura! ai-Muddaththir and other surahs took place not very long
after the original call. There is thus no need to be suspicious about the
conversions that took place during the first three years or so of the Prophet's
career.
I Ibid.
F. "MUHAMMAD'S FEAR AND DESPAIR"
Watt next passes on to his sixth sub-title given above. He starts by saying that
"the passages from az-Zuhri" speak of two types of fear and despair. "Firstly, fear
because of the appearance or presence of the Divine (C, F, ]); and despair which
led to thoughts of suicide (D, I)."
1
Before proceeding further with Watt's other statements in this connection it
should be observed at the outset that the passages, though they undoubtedly
speak about "fear", do in no way speak about "the appearance or presence of the
Divine." Passage J, for instance, which Watt cites here as indicating the
appearance of the Divine, unequivocally says, in Watt's own translation. " .. .I saw
the angel who used to come to me at Hira' on a throne ( k u r s ~ between the
heaven and the earth. I was stricken with fear of him. "
2
Therefore it was the sight
of the angel, not of the Divine, which caused the fear. It would be manifestly
inconsistent to adduce the evidence of the passage in speaking of the
"appearance" or "presence" which caused fear and then to assume, in disregard of
the clear statement of that very passage, that the entity appearing was something
else. Secondly, in interpreting the passage of surat al-Nqjm Watt states, as we have
seen, that while Mul)ammad's (p.b.h.) eyes saw "one of the greatest signs of his
Lord", the "heart perceived the thing symbolized". We have pointed out the
mistake in this interpretation; but according to Watt's own admission, what the
Prophet had seen with his eyes was a "sign" or "symbol" of the Divine, not the
Divine Being Himself. It was this physical sight, this ocular experience, of the
great sign or symbol of the Divine, i.e., the angel, which caused the fear. After all,
what is spiritual or intellectual, or what the "heart perceived", could not have
been a matter for fear. Thirdly, both Bell and Watt say that the Prophet, after
having mistakenly claimed to have had a "vision" of God, subsequently modified
his position not only in surat al-Nqjm but also elsewhere holding that human sight
cannot reach God. Now, the passages from Al-Zuhri, whether regarded as a
narration of 'A'ishah's or others', are obviously subsequent to the supposed
modification of his position by the Prophet. Hence neither 'A'ishah (r.a.) nor any
other reporter could have got the impression that the "vision" was in any way that
of God. To interpret the passages as giving that impression would thus be simply
anachronistic.
I Ibid., 48.
2
Ibid., 49-50.
To proceed with Watt's other statements. He says in connection with the
question of fear caused supposedly by the appearance or presence of the Divine
that according to the testimony of the Old Testament the fear of the near
approach of the Divine has deep roots in the Semitic consciousness. The passages
C and J which mention this fear, he observes, "seem to be mainly" explanations
of the expression al-muzzammil in 73:1 and they suggest "that the later exegetes
were merely inferring the presence of fear from the Qur'an, and had no
information about it apart from the Qur'an."
1
Watt further says that the
"awkward transition from zammiluni to muddaththir" shows that the exegetes
inferred the connection of al-muzzammil, which was not originally so, with the
story of MuJ;lammad's (p.b.h.) call. If, therefore, argues Watt, "it seemed natural
to these later exegetes to take muzzammil in this way, this fear of the onset of the
Divine must have been widespread" and the Prophet "may well have shared in
it. 112
Now, Watt says that the later exegetes merely inferred "the presence of fear
from the Qur'an, and had no information about it apart from the Qur'an". There
is, however, no indication whatsoever in the Qur'an about the fear. All that the
surahs ai-Muzzammil and ai-Muddaththir indicate is that the Prophet was addressed
by these titles and asked either to get up and pray at night or to rise up and warn,
etc. Even surat ai-Nqjm, which speaks of the "vision", does not contain any
indication of the Prophet's having been at any time struck with fear. How could
the later exegetes then have inferred "the presence of fear from the Qur'an" if
they "had no information about it apart from the Qur'an"? The fact is that Watt
here implicitly slips into Bell's view that the traditions are fabrications of a later
age to explain the Qur'anic statements. At the same time Watt founds his remarks
on the fact of fear, information about which is supplied only by the traditions and
not at all by the Qur'an. Watt's argument is, however, fallacious and round-about.
It was the late exegetes who had no information about the fear, who inferred it
from the Qur'an and also inferred the connection of the expression muzzammil
with the story of the Prophet's "call", and since they made this inference, the
"fear of the onset of the Divine" must have been "wide-spread"; and as it was
supposedly wide-spread, "Muhammad may well have shared in it." Clearly Watt
here first makes an unwarranted and incorrect assumption and then argues
backward on the basis of that assumption to prove the existence of widespread
I Ibid., 50.
' Ibid.
fear at the "onset" or "near-approach" of the Divine in which the Prophet might
have shared. In thus arguing Watt in effect turns the table on his preceptor Bell;
for the latter would have us believe that Muhammad (p.b.h.) in his "ignorance"
initially "claimed" that he had a vision of God; but Watt now tells us that the
notion of the onset or near-approach of the Divine and the attendant fear was
"widespread" and that the Prophet only shared in it!
We are not, however, concerned here with the Old Testament testimony about
the matter. We should only point out that in the second and third centuries of
Islam, when the exegetes are alleged to have invented the traditions to provide
explanations for the Qur\1nic statements, the so-called Old Testament notion and
fear about the onset of the Divine could hardly have been prevailing, not to
speak of being widespread, in the Islamic land. And for the reasons mentioned
above, these exegetes could not have conceived the idea of a "vision" of God,
particularly as both Bell and Watt themselves take care to note that the "Islamic
orthodoxy" about it had already been crystallized by then. Nor can one
conceivably read back a supposedly widespread third-century notion into a period
prior even to the onset of that era.
As regards the second theme, namely, "despair" leading to "thoughts of
suicide" Watt finds also its parallel "among the Old Testament prophets and from
the lives of the Christian saints." To substantiate this parallelism he quotes what
A. Poulain reproduces from St. Teresa of Avila's feeling as to "whether the
locutions" she received "came from the devil or from the imagination" etc.
1
Watt
then observes that the thought of suicide could hardly have been attributed to
Mul:pmmad (p.b.h.) "unless he said something which gave a basis" for it and that
such "a period of despair would fit in with the accounts of the Jatrah. "
2
The analogy drawn here by Watt is completely inappropriate; for the statement
of St. Teresa of Avila, which he quotes from A. Poulain's work, speaks only of
her having hovered between faith and doubt as to whether the locutions she
received were from God, from the devil or from imagination and of her at last
being convinced that they were from God, "which she would have died to
defend." The "despair" which could be dimly discerned here relates to the doubt
about the real origin of the "locutions". Muf,tammad's (p.b.h.) despair, on the
other hand, was not at all due to any doubts about the origin of what he had
received, but solely because the coming of that thing had temporarily stopped.
I Ibid
2
Ibid
WATI'S TREATMENT OF AL-ZUHRi'S REPORT 167
His case is thus completely different from that of St Teresa of Avila. The analogy
drawn by Watt with the Old Testament prophets and Christian saints seems to be
purposeful; for, as we shall presendy see, he ultimately suggests that the Qur'anic
wal!J is comparable to the "inspiration" of the Christian prophets and saints- they
received the "inspiration", that is ideas and thoughts, from God and then wrote
down in their own words what they had understood from the "inspiration".
Needless to point out, the concept of Qur'anic waby is totally different.
Incidentally, the quotation given here by Watt from A Poulain's work appears to
be another step towards using that writer's matrix to cast Qur'anic waby into it, as
Watt eventually does.
As regards the remark that Muhammad (p.b.h.) must have said something
which provided a basis for the attribution of the thought of suicide to him, it has
already been seen
1
that this statement of Al-Zuhri's is a conjecture on his part.
Even Watt recognizes that Al-Zuhri's statement in connection with the jatrah is
his "conjecture".
2
The jatrah and the Prophet's despair on account of that are of
course facts. His having mentioned this despair and his frequenting the hills in
expectation of again meeting the angel appear to have provided the basis for this
conjecture. Whatever might have been the duration of the fatrah and the intensity
of the Prophet's despair on that account, they both emphatically illustrate the fact
that waf.!y was not something emanating from his own consciousness - it was
none of his imaginative/intellectual locution. Had it been so, there would have
been no fatrah and no resultant despair.
G. "ENCOURAGEMENT FROM KHADIJAH AND WARAQAH"
Under this last sub-heading Watt stresses first that there is "no reason for
rejecting the account of how Khadijah reassured Muhammad". It shows,
continues Watt, that "Muhammad was lacking in self-confidence at this stage".
He further says, contradicting in effect Bell's view on the subject, that "there is no
strong reason" for doubting the authenticity of the phrase about the ndmus. Its
use, "instead of the Qur'anic Tawrah", argues Watt, is an argument for its
genuineness. Watt then says that the reassurance from Waraqah was important. It
encouraged Mu}::lammad (p.b.h.) to "put the highest construction on his
experiences". As such it was "of great importance in his interior development." It
also shows that initially he "was of a hesitant nature". The rest of the story,
t Supm, P
2
WAIT, op.cit., 49.
observes Watt, "seems to be an attempt to explain why Waraqah, though he
approved Muhammad, did not become a Muslim."
1
It has already been pointed out
2
that the use of the expression namus is rather a
conclusive evidence in favour of the genuineness of the account. Watt does not
explain why the subsequent narrators or reporters should have been interested in
defending Waraqah and in explaining why he did not become a Muslim. If they
had really added to or modified the account, they would more naturally have
done so in respect of those aspects of it that, as Watt states, show the Prophet to
be "lacking in self-confidence" and "of a hesitant nature". The fact is that neither
the one nor the other part of the account is a later addition "from inference or
imagination". The account as a whole illustrates the fact that, whatever might
have been the motive behind the Prophet's solitary stay at I;-Iira', and whatever
might have been the nature of t a ~ a n n u t h , the coming of wa(!y was unexpected and
surprising to him and that he did neither plan nor make any preparations for
giving himself out as a Prophet.
Like Bell, Watt thinks that the word namus is derived from nomos and means
"the law or revealed scriptures". Waraqah's remarks, says Watt, would thus have
been made after Mul;lammad (p.b.h.) "had started to receive revelations" and they
meant that what had come to him "was to be identified or at least classed with the
Jewish or Christian scriptures" and that he "should be founder or legislator of a
community. "
3
Waraqah's remarks were of course made after the Prophet had received the
first revelation, not "revelations". Had he already received a number of
revelations he would have been familiarised with the affair, the initial surprise or
uncertainty would have been over and there would have been no reason for his
going to Waraqah for consultation. On the other hand, if Waraqah had meant to
say what Watt thinks he had meant, then there were deeper reasons for his doing
so. It is just not conceivable that an intelligent, knowledgeable and experienced
individual like Waraqah, after only listening to an unusual story from a junior
acquaintance and relative of his, would jump to the conclusion that a law or
scripture comparable to those of the Jews and Christians had started coming to
him. Waraqah must have been sure of two things before he made the reported
remarks. He must have got an impression from a study of the old scriptures that
I Ibid., 51.
2
Supra, pp.
1
WAIT, op.cit., 51.
they contained indications of the coming of another Messenger and of other
revelations upon him. Waraqah must also have been convinced, from a
knowledge of the character and antecedent of Mul;ammad (p.b.h.) that he
possessed the quality of being such a Messenger. Hence, when he disclosed his
unusual experience to Waraqah, he immediately came to the conclusion that what
he had learnt from the old scriptures had come to pass and that Mu};lammad
(p.b.h.) the faithful, the trustworthy and the truthful was the recipient of that
divine commission and revelation.
Whatever the origin and meaning of the term namus, it, as used by Waraqah,
had no doubt reference to what had come to Mul;ammad (p.b.h.); and that
reference was not simply to the "words" he had received, but also to the unusual
circumstance in which they had been received. This unusual circumstance was the
appearance of the entity who had delivered the words. It was this "appearance"
which caused Mu};lammad's (p.b.h.) surprise and bewilderment and which
brought him and his wife to the wise man of the community in search of an
explanation. Had Mu};lammad (p.b.h.) simply "heard" the words, or had it been an
"interior locution", imaginative or intellectual, there would hardly have been any
reason for surprise and fear. The "appearance" or "vision" is thus the central
feature of the beginning of "the call". Namus had reference to this feature as well as
to the words that were received.
Waraqah's use of the expression namus is significant in another respect. It is
clear from all the accounts that the very first persons to whom Mul;ammad
(p.b.h.) disclosed his unusual experience were Khadijah (r.a.) and Waraqah. Had
he "claimed" or "interpreted" or supposed his "vision" to be one of God,
Waraqah, with his knowledge of the Jewish and Christian scriptures, would have
straightway dismissed it as imagination and mistake and would not have left it for
Mu};lammad (p.b.h.) or for any twentieth century scholar to subsequently find out
the mistake. Nor is namus, whatever its origin and meaning, applicable to a vision
of God".
After having stressed the importance of Waraqah's reassurance Watt says that
the concluding words of the "first" revelation, "Who taught by the pen, Taught
man what he did not know", refer "almost certainly" to "previous revelations". By
"previous revelations" Watt means the Old and the New Testament and argues
that there is no point in telling the Prophet that God "taught the use of pen" if he
could neither read nor write. And since he was in close contact with Waraqah
who "is outstanding for his study of the Christian scriptures", M u ~ a m m a d (p.b.h)
had learnt from him "much of a general character". When, therefore, he repeated
the passage it must "have reminded him of what he owed to Waraqah." "Later
Islamic conceptions", concludes Watt, may have been largely moulded by
Waraqah's ideas, e.g. of the relation of Mul;lammad's revelation to previous
revelations. "
1
There is rarely any orientalist who, whenever there is an occasion to refer to
the well-known story of the Prophet's consultation with Waraqah after the
receipt of the first revelation, fails to make use of it for pressing the view that the
former learnt much from the latter for producing the Qur'an and Islam. That
general theme of borrowing from the previous religious systems, particularly from
Judaism and Christianity, has already been dealt with.
2
Here we may only make
some observations on Watt's above mentioned remarks. The statement "Who
taught by the pen" or "Who taught the use of pen" (there is very little difference
in the sense in the two forms of translation) is not meant simply to emphasize
that particular skill. The passages as a whole stress man's origin and creation on
the one hand, and the most important element in his mental and intellectual
development, namely, his knowledge and intelligence. Nothing could be a better
start for the revelation than to remind man that he owed his origin and creation,
as well as the quality which distinguished him from the rest of the creation, his
knowledge and intelligence, to Allah Alone. In this sense the mention of pen here
is figurative. On the other hand, it also signifies that what was being revealed to
the Prophet was the beginning of a "scripture" which was to be preserved and
transmitted by means of reading and recitation as well by means of the pen, it
mattered not whether the Prophet himself possessed the skill of writing or not.
Watt's main argument here, however, leads us nowhere. If the 'iqra' passage, as
Watt suggests, only reminded Muqammad (p.b.h.) when he repeated it "of what
he owed to Waraqah", then there would have been no reason for his going to
Waraqah for an explanation of the whole matter. On the other hand, ifWaraqah
had taught so many things, he would not have made the remarks he did; he would
simply have said that this was what he had so long been teaching M u ~ a m m a d
(p.b.h.) and that he had after all realized the truth. While suggesting that the
Prophet had learnt a good deal from Waraqah, Watt and the other orientalists do
not ask themselves this simple question: Why should Waraqah have been privy to
I Ibid., 51-52.
2
Supra, Chapter II.
Mul)ammad's (p.b.h.) plans for producing a new scripture and a new religion?
They seem to have avoided also the question whether it would not have been far
more sensible on the Prophet's part to learn reading and thus himself acquire a
knowledge of the old scriptures and make his own plans and preparations, than to
let others know his secrets? Again, if "later Islamic conceptions", such as "the
relation of Muhammad's revelation to previous revelations" were moulded by
Waraqah's ideas, such ideas the latter must have obtained from his study of the
previous scriptures. The Islamic conception would thus be only in line with the
teachings of the Old and the New Testament, and in that case the orientalists
should find no difficulty in acknowledging the truth and reasonableness of the
particular concept, namely, the fundamental unity and relationship of all the
revealed scriptures. If by "later Islamic conceptions" is meant that the conception
of the "relation of Muhammad's revelation to previous revelations" was
developed after the time of the Prophet, then the statement would be totally
wrong; for that relationship is very much emphasized in the Qur'an itself, and
that also in such an early passage as 87:18-19 which clearly states: "Verily this is in
the early scriptures, the scriptures of Ibrahim and Mus a." If, on the other hand,
by "later" is meant that the Prophet subsequently related his "revelation to
previous revelations", then the point is very much admitted by himself, and there
is no need to take all the troubles to prove it. In fact, the need is far more to look
into the question of what he claimed to be different or new in the revelation he
had received or claimed that what he had received was also contained in the past
revelations but had been lost on account of human fault or error.
CHAP1ER VII
THE ORIENTALISTS ON THE QUR'ANIC WAljY:
IV. WATT'S THEORY OF INTELLECTUAL LOCUTION
In the final section of his treatment of the subject under caption : The form of
Muhammad's prophetic consciousness, Watt summarises his as well as his predecessors'
views. As a preliminary to his doing this he points out the West's awareness since
the time of Carlyle of the Prophet's sincerity and, like Bell, stresses the need to
"hold firmly to the belief of his sincerity until the opposite is conclusively
proved." He then expresses his intention to remain neutral with regard to the
different views about the Qur'an held by the orthodox Muslim, the Western
secularist and the modern Christian, saying that he would, out of courtesy, use the
expression "the Qur'an says" and not "Muhammad says", but if he speaks "of a
passage being revealed to Muhammad" this should not be taken as an acceptance
of the Muslim point of view and the reader should "supply 'as the Muslims say' or
some such phrase'."
1
J. W ATI
1
S MATRIX: A. POULAIN
1
S THEORY
After these preliminaries Watt introduces A. Poulain's definitions of "locution"
and "vision" as given in his book Graces of Interior Prqyer.
2
According to that writer,
says Watt, "locution" and "vision" may each be either "exterior" or "interior".
"Exterior locutions" are "words heard by the ear, though not produced naturally."
Similarly "exterior visions" are "visions of material objects, or what seem to be
such, perceived by the bodily eyes." "Interior locution" and "interior vision" may
each be either "imaginative" or "intellectual". "Imaginative locutions" are received
direcdy by the imaginative sense, without the assistance of the ear. An
"intellectual locution", on the other hand, is "a simple communication of thought
without words, and consequendy without any definite language.
3
With this
"equipment" Watt turns "to the Qur'an and the traditional accounts."
Before seeing how Watt uses this equipment it would be worthwhile to
indicate the inherent inconsistency in his approach. He professes to remain
neutral with regard to the theological questions and to refrain from expressing
any theological opinion. But having said so he immediately turns to what is
1
WAIT, M. atM., 52-53.
2
London, 1928.
' Watt, op.cit.,54, citing A. Poulain's work.
WA Tf'S TIIEORY OF INTELLECTUAL LOCUTION 173
avowedly a book on "mystical theology" dealing essentially with "interior" prayer
and the experiences of Christian saints and mystics in order to explain Qur'anic
waf.!y or what he calls "the form of Muhammad's prophetic consciousness".
Secondly, he declares that he would not deny "any fundamental Islamic belief''. In
practice, however, he immediately proceeds to do just the opposite thing, that is
to show that the Qur'anic wai!J fits in with A. Poulain's definition of "intellectual
locution", that is, it is a "simple communication of thought without words", etc.
This is nothing but a denial of, if not an affront to, the most fundamental Islamic
belief that the Qur'anic wai!J is not a form of Mul)ammad's (p.b.h.) consciousness,
normal or supra-normal. The fact is that Watt has introduced A. Poulain's
equipment only to prove the usual Christian missionary and orientalist point of
view, more particularly the view of Bell, but only in an intellectual garb. It is
understandable that a believing Christian cannot conscientiously subscribe to the
Muslim point of view. But being no doubt aware of what he actually wanted to
do it would have been better for Watt if he had not committed himself to
neutrality and undertaken not to deny any fundamental Islamic belief.
Il. WATT'S APPLICATION OF TilE TIIEORY CONSIDERED
Having introduced Poulain's definition Watt refers briefly to the "manners"
(kqyftyat) of revelation as mentioned in Al-Suytiti's Itqan
1
and other sources and
says that the main types are described, however, in the Qur'anic passage 42:50-52.
He translates this passage as: "It belongeth not to any human being that God
should speak to him except by suggestion (wai!Jan) or from behind a veil, or
sending a messenger to suggest ifa-:Juf;iya) by His permission what He pleaseth ....
Thus We have suggested to thee a spirit belonging to Our affair (awl;qynd)."
2
"The first manner therefore", continues Watt, "is where God speaks by wal!J".
He then states three things. He refers to Bell who, it is said, after studying the
various uses of the term waf.!y in the Qur'an has shown that at least in its early
portions the word means not verbal communication of a text, but "suggestion",
"prompting" or "inspiration" coming into a person's mind. Secondly, Watt says
that for "most of the Meccan period" wai!J was "the work of the Spirit". He cites
in support of this statement the Qur'anic passage 26:192-194 which he translates
as: "Verily it is the revelation ( t a n i f ~ of the Lord of the Worlds, With which has
come down (nazala bi-hz) the Faithful Spirit Upon thy heart, that thou mayest be
1
JALAL AL-DiN AL-Sunrri, Al-Itqdn Fi Vllim a/Qur'dn.
2
WAIT, op.cit, 54.
of those who warn." Watt adds here that the mention of angels bearing a message
"is apparently later". Thirdly, he says that so far as he has noticed there is no
mention "during the Meccan period" of "the Prophet 'hearing' what is brought
down to him." On these grounds Watt says that "the Spirit" introduced "the
message into Muhammad's heart and mind by some method other than speaking
to him" and that this would then be "an interior locution, and probably an
intellectual one".
1
Now, the passage 42:51-52 does indeed describe the main manners in which
Allah communicates His words to His chosen men. Watt's translation of this
passage is, however, both inaccurate and misleading. The rendering of wafty and
awha as "suggestion" and "suggested" is, as we have seen
2
, wrong. Watt does well
to refer here to Bell and his conclusion about the meaning of the term waf!Y. We
have already discussed his article in detail and have shown that his suggestion of
"suggestion" etc. being the meaning of the term is very much wrong and
inapplicable in the case of Qur'anic waf!Y. That the expression "suggestion"
cannot be appropriate in every place where the term waf(y or its derivatives occur
would be evident even from the passage which Watt has translated here. Thus,
even if for argument's sake we employ "suggestion" for wal;yan in the first clause
of the passage, the same expression cannot be accurate in translating fa yu1rya in
the second clause, i.e, "by sending a messenger to suggest (?) by His
permission .... " In this latter case what the messenger does, because he is only a
messenger and not a delegate or deputy, is really not that he "suggests" but only
conveys or delivers what is Allah's waf!y. Thus y u ~ r y a in this instance means
"conveys" or "delivers" and not "suggests", as Watt translates it. He is also
confusing in translating 'qyah 52 as "Thus We have suggested to thee a spirit
belonging to Our affair"." How a "spirit belonging to Our affair" could be
"suggested" is not easily understandable. Nor would the meaning of the
expression be clear. The meaning of the phrase min 'amrina here is "by Our
command". But even if we accept Watt's translation of this expression, rtll} here is
admittedly the object of the verb 'awf;qyna, that is rtll) is something which has been
wafty-ied. In other words, rul; here means waf!y as object, not as verb. The nature
of the object is clarified in the concluding part of the 'qyah which runs: "You did
not know what the Book is, nor the faith, but We have made it a light wherewith
We guide whomsoever of Our servants We will..."
3
This explanatory clause shows
I Ibid., 55.
2
Supra, pp. 125 ff.
WAIT'S TIIEORY OF INTELLECTUAL LOCUTION 175
clearly that the rnl; mentioned previously is the Book, i.e., the text of the Book
(Qur'an), which was wakf'-ied to the Prophet.
As regards Watt's second argument that for the most of the Makkan period
waf(y was the "work of the Spirit" and that angels are mentioned as messengers
"apparently" later, he is mistaken in two ways. His citing of the passage
26:192-194 in this connection shows that he has misunderstood the sense of the
passage as a whole and also the meaning of "the faithful spirit" (al-rnl; al-'amfn).
Watt is speaking here about the first manner, i.e., "where God speaks by waf.!y",
and not about the other manners, namely, speaking from "behind the veil" or by
"sending a messenger". The passage in question, however, relates to this last
mentioned manner, and not at all to the first manner. It appears that Watt has
taken "the faithful spirit" here in the sense of God. Hence he has cited the
passage as illustrative of the first manner of waf.!y and has also capitalized the first
letters of the words "faithful" and "spirit". In doing so he appears to have
imported a theological concept peculiar to Christianity into the explanation of a
Qur'anic expression. He disregards or fails to understand the implication of the
first 'qyah of the passage under reference. It speaks of the Qur'an as a tan=(jl, i.e.,
something "sent-down", and the sender is the "Lord of the Worlds". The next
'qyah mentions the agency which brought it down - "with which hath come down
(naza!a bi-hz) the faithful spirit". The "faithful spirit" is thus the messenger who
brought it down. Incidentally, it may be observed that Watt has translated the
word tanztl, which clearly stands here for the Qur'anic waf.!y, as "revelation",
apparently because he cannot by any stretch of the imagination apply the word
"suggestion" here. Even his proviso that the reader should supply "as the
Muslims say" or any such phrase is inapplicable in the present instance.
As regards the expression "faithful spirit" it has already been shown
2
that it is
the same as rasul karim mentioned in 69:40 and 81:19. In the latter passage (i.e., in
81:21) he is described also as 'amfn, and that he is very much an angel. This also
negatives Watt's claim that "angels" are spoken of as messengers only "later". It
should further be noted that nowhere in the Qur'an is al-'amfn (the faithful)
mentioned as an attribute or name of God; nor is the adjective "faithful" ever
applied to the "spirit" which the Christians consider as an aspect of the Trinity.
The term rnl; has been used in the Qur'an in various senses, namely, spirit of life
or soul, angel and, as just seen in 42:50-52, in the sense of waf:y as object.
1
The text runs as follows: ... c,W> <f" ,L!.; <f".., <>-'+' l;y ,u...,. J.!) 0L..,'YI 'Y) ylJil.o <;;"" ~ Lo
2
Supra, pp. 120-125; 144-148.
176 Tiffi QUR'AN AND THE ORIENTALISTS
Watt's third argument is that there is no mention in the Makkan period "of the
Prophet 'hearing' what is brought down to him." Of course neither in the Makkan
nor in the Madinan surahs of the Qur'an is there any mention that the Prophet
"heard" a revelation. This is so because the Qur'an is not the Prophet's
composition. But if one looks with a little care one would not miss that the
author of the Qur'an, Allah, instructs the Prophet at the very initial stage how to
receive revelations and repeatedly asks him to listen carefully to what is recited
unto him before hastening to recite and repeat it. "Do not move your tongue in
order to hasten with it. It is upon Us (to see to) its recollection and recitation. So
when We have it recited, then repeat its recitation/reading." (75:16-18) The same
instruction is repeated in 20:114: "And be not in haste with the Quran before its
communication to you is completed." Of similar import, again, is 87:6: "We shall
enable you to recite/ read it; so you shall not forget it." These are all early Makkan
passages and contain unmistakable exhortations to the Prophet to first listen to
the recitation of the Qur'an (by the angel Jibril) and then recite it. Indeed the
Qur'an, as both Bell and Watt recognize, means reading/recitation. Needless to
point out that nothing is suitable for reading or recitation, even if from memory,
but a specific text. And Allah unequivocally says that He has sent it down as a
"recitation/Qur'an" in Arabic, not as a suggestion to the Prophet to "compose"
the Qur'an- "Verily We have sent it down as a recitation/reading, in Arabic ... "
1
Watt seems to have taken the expression 'ala qalbika (upon thy heart) in the
passage 26:192-193 to mean that waf.!y was some "suggestion" or idea that came
into the Prophet's mind. The expression in question does in no way imply that
sense; for it is immediately added that what is delivered is in "clear Arabic
tongue" (26:194 bi-lisanin 'arabryyin mubin), thus removing any ground for doubting
the nature of what is delivered. In fact, the expression 'ala qalbika is intended to
emphasize that the text thus delivered was transfixed in the Prophet's heart, i.e.,
mind and brain, by Allah's will so that he would not forget it. It has the same
sense as is expressed in 75:17 ("It is upon Us its recollection and recitation") and
in 87:6 ("We shall enable you to read it, so you shall not forget it"). In fact, "to get
by heart " is a familiar English phrase for committing to memory. All our
knowledge of mother or foreign tongue, not to speak of any specific text or
group of words, is in the ultimate analysis such getting ry heart of each and every
word of the vocabulary, or rather each and every letter of the alphabet of the
1
Q. 12:2. See also 39:28; 41:3; 42:7 and 43:3.
WAITS THEORY OF INTELLECTUAL LOCUTION 177
respective language or languages, as makes us not feel, when we see or use them,
that we are merely reproducing them from our memory (i.e. heart). The
expression 'ala qalbika in the passage under reference has this sense of transfixing
in the Prophet's 'heart', and not the sense of "suggestion" or ideas communicated
to him.
In connection with this discussion about the first manner of wa.f?J Watt cites
the f;adfth of ibn Hisham
1
in which the Prophet is reported as saying
that sometimes wafo used to come to him like the reverberation of a bell (ral{alat
aljaras). Watt says that this is "quite compatible" with the first manner and that it
was "doubtless an imaginative experience", "an intellectual locution". He further
says that there is in this report no mention of the Prophet's "hearing anyone
speaking or of hearing words spoken, not even imaginatively. On the contrary, at
the end of the experience he appears simply to find the words of the revelation in
his heart. It is fairly clear that ... this is a description of an intellectual locution. "
2
It should at once be pointed out that Watt is not quite correct in thus relating
this manner of wafo to what he calls the first manner, i.e., waf?y coming without
the instrumentality of the angel; for in another version of the same report in
Bukhdrf it is specifically mentioned that this was also a manner in which waf?y was
delivered by the angel.
3
Watt also misstates the case when he says: "The hearing
of the bell is doubtless an imaginative experience ... " It was no hearing of the bell;
it was wafo which the Prophet heard like the sounding of the bell. The expression
mithla (like) used along with fal{alah makes this quite clear. Nor was it an
"imaginative experience", as Watt terms it; for the Prophet unequivocally
mentions that it was "the hardest on me", thereby saying that it was very much a
physical experience on his part. The same thing is emphasized by 'A'isha (r.a.)
when she says that she saw him, at the coming down of wafo upon him, "on an
extremely cold day, with his forehead running down with perspiration." It is
strange that Watt, after having quoted this report verbatim (the words in
quotation are his) suggests that it was an "imaginative experience"!
A second grave mistake on Watt's part lies in his statement: " ... there is no
mention of hearing anyone speaking or of hearing words spoken, not even
imaginatively." Now, the material clause here in the report is: wa qad wa'qytu 'anhu
ma qala, which means: "and I committed to memory/ got by heart from him what
1
Bukhdrf, no.2.
2
WAIT, op.dt, 55-56.
' Bukhdrf, no. 3215.
he said." The fact of something having been said to him is thus clearly stated in
the report. Watt ignores this significant statement in the report and asserts that
"there is no mention" of "anyone speaking" on the occasion. He seems to think
that the verb wa'aytu does not bear any sense of hearing and that it means simply
to understand something within one's own self. This is quite a wrong supposition.
The primary meaning of the verb wa) is to hold, to contain, to retain in memory,
to remember, to listen carefully and remember, etc.
1
More particularly, when it is
used with the expression ma qala (what he said) it invariably means listening
carefully and getting by heart what is said. Watt himself translates the clause as:
" ... and I have understood from it what He (or "he") said." Even in English, when
it is said, "I have understood what he said", it does not exclude hearing of that
which is said. In the above noted translation of his, however, Watt commits
another mistake. He translates the word 'anhu in the text as "from it". Obviously
he means by "it" what he conceives to be the sound of the bell; but this is not the
case. The pronoun hu here refers to the angel, not to fal[alat af.jaras; for in that
case it would have been framed in the feminine form ha, falfalah being feminine in
form.
In fact the verb wa'a/ya'f in its various forms is the appropriate term used in
literature to mean listening carefully and getting by heart what is said or
stated by another person. The following three typical instances illustrate this
special meaning of the verb.
(a) The famous l;adfth of 'Abu Hurayrah (r.a.) in which he said:
J 0 0\5" .s.,;t,; J. .ull ..y. .y rL J .ull .uli J_,.. J 0\5" \...
.... ..,_! J .:..S J
" .... None used to know more of the badith of the Messenger of Allah, may peace and blessings
of Allah be on him, than me except 'Abd Allah ibn 'Amr; for he used to write (it) down with his
hand and also get it by heart (ya'i bi-qalbihr), while I used to get it by heart (kuntu 'a'ihi bi-qalbt) and
did not write it with my hand ... "
2
(b) The padzth ofKM.lid al-'Udwaru (r.a.):
J l.fjl) .!.l_r. lJ.o.WI J 4-:::s-} Ju 4-...:.>- ? J}kliJ \_A .w...........; Ju
" ... He said: Thus I heard him [the Prophet] read Wa ai-Sama' wa ai-Tariq [surah 86] till he
flnished it. He said: So I committed it to memory (wa'qytuhu) in the state ofjahif!Y.yah while I had
been a polytheist; then I recited it in Islam . "
3
(c) The of 'AbdAllah ibn Mas'ud (r.a.):
1
See Usdn a/- 'Arab, under wa),or any standard Arabic-English dictionary, for instance, HANS WEHR, A Dictionary of Modern
Written Arabic (ed. J. Milton Cowan), under wa).
2
Musnad, II, 403.
' Musnad, IV, 335.
WATT'S THEORY OF INTELLECTUAL LOCUTION 179
. . . .;J.>. i.S .lJ\ ~ - L > . . l i r+-' J.>.IJ JS' .f ~ J Jj J ...
" ... And I had committed to memory (wa qad wa'qytu) from everyone of them the ljadith which
he narrated to me .... "
1
There are many other reports wherein the verb is used specifically to mean
listening carefully and retaining in memory what is said.
2
The same sense of the
verb is clearly borne out by the Qur\l.nic passage 69:12:
-fJ .:>.>! 4-:...i J ..? j; ~ 4-k-J ....
" .. .That We might make it a reminder for you and that the retaining ears might retain it (in
remembrance)."
Thus, Watt has erred in understanding the meaning of the verb wa'qytu
occurring in the report and in supposing that there is no mention in it of anything
being said or heard and, further, that the Prophet at the end of the experience
"simply found the words of the revelation in his heart." A no less fundamental
defect in Watt's treatment of the report is that while it speaks of a single manner
of the coming of waf.!y, he bifurcates the process into two different types of
experiences - the one, the so-called "imaginative experience", and the other, the
so-called "intellectual locution". The text of the report in no way warrants such
bifurcation of the single process. The manner of the coming of wa!;y spoken of
here was neither an imaginative experience nor an intellectual locution. It was
very much a physical experience on the Prophet's part and a vocal
communication of a text which he heard and retained in memory.
Speaking about the second manner where Allah speaks "from behind a veil"
Watt says that this had reference primarily to some early experiences of the
Prophet, "such as that in passage B of the material from az-Zuhri", where "the
Truth came to him and said, 0 Muhammad, thou art the Messenger of God."
3
Watt further says that since the words "from behind the veil" suggest that there is
no vision of the speaker, it implies that in such a case only the "words are heard,
and that therefore this is an imaginative locution (or even an exterior locution)."
4
In the above mentioned states Watt in effect admits his inconsistency, though
he does not seem to realize it. He has so long been utilizing the passage B of
Al-Zuhri's text, particularly the expression "the Truth came to him and said ... ", as
evidence of a "vision of God", or at least an ocular vision of a symbol of God (or
I Ibid.,VI, 194.
2
See for instance, Bukhdri, no. 2047; Tirmidhr; no. 2658; Ddrifi, Introduction, p. 24; Mu.rnad, II, 161, 475; IV, 254, 366,
etc.
3
WAIT, op.cit., 56.
' Ibid.
probably, as he assumes, a mental or imaginative vision of God). But now he cites
the passage to illustrate the manner of Allah's speaking "from behind a veil", i.e.,
without being seen, and hence it was the case of only hearing the words without a
vision- "an imaginative" or "exterior locution". It is indeed difficult to keep pace
with Watt's inconsistencies! The only relieving feature is that he quickly adds that
this manner "was presumably not common" and conceivably "intended for a
description of Moses. "
1
Speaking about the third manner where Allah sends a messenger to deliver
waP.J Watt says that Muslim scholars think that the messenger was Jibril and it was
he who brought waP.J from the beginning; but Western scholars note that he is
not mentioned lry name in the Qur'an until the Medinan period, that "there is
much" both in the Qur'an and tradition "that is contrary to the common Muslim
view", and that the Muslim view "reads back later conceptions into the earlier
period."
2
Watt further says that during the Medinan period revelations by means
of Jibril might have been common; but even in "such cases the revelation was
presumably an imaginative locution", for the mention of Jibril coming in the
"form of a man" suggests "an imaginative vision."
3
It may be easily seen that Watt here reiterates the same old plea that Jibril is
not mentioned i?J name in the Qur'an until the Madinan period and states on that
basis that the Muslim view reads back later conceptions into the earlier period.
This specific remark is an exact echo of what Bell says in this connection.
4
This
remark and the statement that the Muslim view is contrary to much of what is
contained in the Qur'an and tradition are obviously based on the above
mentioned plea and also on the other assumptions, namely, (a) that Al-Zuhri's
report speaks of "the truth" and not of Jibril bringing the revelation; (b) that the
passage of sural ai-Nqjm speaks of a vision of God and (c) that the term w a ~ as
used in the Qur'an does not mean verbal communication of a text. All these
assumptions have already been examined and shown to be wrong and untenable
5

Hence the above mentioned remarks of Watt are also untenable.
Watt admits that revelations by means of Jibdl might have been common
throughout the Madinan period. Why then the same angel could not have been
the conveyer of waP.J in the earlier period is not explained by Watt. His
I Ibid.
2
Ibid.
' Ibid., 57.
4
SeeM. W., 1934, p. 149.
5
See the previous chapter.
WAITS TIIEORY OF INTEllEC11JAL LOCUTION 181
predecessor Bell of course suggests, as seen earlier, that Jibril was introduced at
Madina because it was only then that the Prophet came to know about him (and
the angels)! The unreasonableness of this explanation has been pointed out
earlier. That Watt does not advance any explanation in this connection probably
indicates that he is aware of the weakness of Bell's explanation but intends
nonetheless to make use of the assumption.
While recognizing that during the Madinan period revelations by means of
Jibril could be common Watt says that in such cases these were "presumably
imaginative" locutions because the traditions mention Jibril appearing "in the
form of a man" which suggests that his appearance was "an imaginative vision".
Angels appearing in the form of human beings and delivering God's messages to
His chosen persons is a familiar theme in the Old and the New Testament. Also,
some Makkan passages of the Qur'an, as noted earlier, say in reply to the Makkan
unbelievers' objections that if an angel was to be sent as Allah's messenger to
them he would still be sent in the form of a human being. The idea of an angel
appearing in the form of a human being is thus neither novel in the case of
Mu}:tammad (p.b.n.) nor is its information confined only to traditions of the
Madinan period. Why then the appearance of an angel in the form of a human
being should be only an "imaginative" affair is not explained by Watt. It may only
be pointed out here that the coming of Jibril to the Prophet was not always an
affair strictly private to him. Sometimes, as in the famous l;addth relating to imdn
and 'il;sdn, the appearance of Jibril in the form of a man was very much a physical
affair noticed by the Prophet's companions. Therefore the matter cannot be
simply disposed of by saying that the angel's appearance was "presumably" an
"imaginative vision" on the Prophet's part..
It would have been observed that whatever the manner of wary, Watt has
attempted to show it to be either an imaginative or an intellectual locution. Thus
the first manner of waf!y, according to Watt, was an "interior", "probably an
intellectual" locution; the second manner, "an imaginative locution (or even an
exterior locution)", and the third manner, "presumably an imaginative" locution.
The whole manoeuvre is directed towards showing that the Qur'anic wary was a
matter of the Prophet's mind, "intellect" and " consciousness", a psychological
phenomenon, not verbal communication of any text made physically by any
agency. By such manoeuvres Watt seems to aim also at bringing Islamic
revelation in line with the Christian concept of "inspiration". Hence he asks his
readers not to confuse "visions" and "locutions" with hallucination, to take
seriously the "science" and "discipline" of "mystical theology" as developed by
writers like A. Poulain and suggests that "it would undoubtedly be profitable to
make a full comparison of the phenomenal aspects of Muhammad's experiences
with those of Christian saints and mystics."
1
It should at once be pointed out that the analogy so far made by Watt between
the "manners" of Qur'anic waf.!Y and the mystical concepts of A. Poulain is neither
convincing nor tenable. Nor are the manners of Qur'anic revelation comparable
with the experiences of the Christian saints and mystics who, being "inspired", are
said to have put down in their own words what they understood from the
"inspiration".
Finally, Watt refers to "the physical accompaniments of the reception of
revelation" and to instances of the Prophet's putting on a dithar and says that the
symptoms described could not be identical with epilepsy which allegation Watt
rejects as "completely unsound based on mere ignorance and prejudice." Having
done so, however, he harps on the allegation of the Prophet's having known
something of the method of "inducing" revelations "by 'listening' or
self-hypnotism or whatever we like to call it."
2
It is further alleged that the
Prophet knew the "way of emending the Qur'an; ... of discovering the correct
form of what had been revealed in incomplete or incorrect form."
3
Earlier, while
speaking about what is called the Prophet's attempt to "induce emending
revelations", Watt observes that "it is part of orthodox Muslim theory that some
revelations were abrogated by others."
4
Now, it is to be noted that Watt here combines two different theories of his
predecessors into one theme. He reiterates, on the one hand, Margoliouth's
theory of the inducing of revelations by a sort of self-hypnotism etc., and, on the
other, relates it to Bell's theory of "revision" of the Qur'an by the Prophet. it may
be recalled that while Margoliouth bases his theory of "inducing" on what is
called "the physical accompaniments of the reception of revelation", Bell bases
his theory on the language-style of the Qur'an and the theory of abrogation. So
far as the latter's views are concerned, they are, as will be seen a little later on,
untenable.
5
It may once again be pointed out that the concept of "abrogation"
1
WATI, op.dt., 57.
2
Ibzd., 57-58.
' Ibid, 58.
4
Ibid
' See injra, chapter IX, section II.
WAIT'S THEORY OF INTELLECTUAL LOCUTION 183
(naskh) relates not to the replacement of one 'qyah of the Qur'an by another 'qyah
or 'qyahs, but to the amendment of certain ~ u k m s or instructions and rules of
guidance. Watt combines the two themes by a subtle shift from the "physical
accompaniments" to what is called "the technique" which the Prophet is alleged
to have developed of "listening" and "discovering the missing verses", of
"emending the Qur'an", etc. The innuendo that apparently links the so-called
"inducing" of revelations on the one hand and the "technique" of emending or
revising the Qur'an on the other is that in both cases it was a skill and technique
acquired or artificially produced by the Prophet- a sort of "self-hypnotism or
whatever we like to call it." It is difficult to see how this innuendo is any the
better than the allegation of epilepsy which Watt so grandiloquently rejects. The
main reason for his rejection of the theory of epilepsy appears to be not an
intention to present the Prophet's image in a better form but a realization of the
fact, as Watt points out, that "that disease leads to physical and mental
degeneration, whereas Muhammad was in the fullest possession of his faculties to
the very end. "
1
.
In making the alternative and no less serious reflection on the Prophet's
character and integrity Watt does not cite a single instance of when the Prophet
"induced" the "physical accompaniments" or applied the "technique" in
"emending the Qur'an" or in "discovering the missing verses". Watt simply
disposes of this basic requirement in substantiating the allegation by saying that
"the details must remain conjectural, but it would seem certain that Muhammad
had some way of emending the Qur'an ... "
2
Thus does Watt present his conclusion
avowedly on the basis of what is "conjectural" and what would "seem to be
certain". Yet he starts his discussion by reminding others that in the matter of the
Prophet's sincerity and integrity "conclusive proof is a much stricter requirement
than a show of plausibility". Clearly, Watt has sacrificed his professed objective at
the altar not even of plausibility but of conjecture savouring of prejudice.
Watt somewhat mollifies his conclusion by adding that the fact that
"Muhammad sometimes induced his experiences of revelation" is not relevant "to
the theologian's judgement of validity."
3
The statement is unnecessary because
Watt professes not to express any theological opinion. But whether the question
is relevant or not for the theologian's judgement, it is very much relevant to the
1
W ATI, op.tit., 57.
2
Ibid, 58.
' Ibid
historian's quest for the truth. By merely reproducing his predecessors' views that
the Prophet sometimes "induced", that is, artificially produced the revelation or
made emendation of the Qur'an, by self-hypnotism or the like, the historian Watt
has obviously slipped away from his stand as historian and has simply failed to act
up to the standard he had set for himself at the beginning.
It appears that Watt here labours under a difficulty. Having concentrated his
attention almost exclusively on the objective of casting the "experiences of
revelation" into Poulain's mould of "imaginative" and "intellectual" locutions he
at last finds himself confronted with the facts of physical hardships that
undoubtedly sometimes accompanied the coming of wal{y to the Prophet. Watt
finds it impossible to fit them in the theory of intellectual or imaginative
locutions. Hence he simply dumps them into the dustbin of the Margoliouth-Bell
theories of inducing of revelations and emendation of the Qur'an. He seems to
have persuaded himself that since the theory of disease (epilepsy) does not work,
that of deliberate fraud, namely, artificially producing and inducing the symptoms
of revelations would. If Watt had considered the facts really objectively he would
not have missed the point that "the physical accompaniments of the reception of
revelation" strongly militate against the theory of intellectual or imaginative
locution. After all, the Christian saints and mystics whom Poulain has chiefly in
view do not appear to have had the physical accompaniments of revelation
experienced by the Prophet. Hence his case is very much different from that of
the saints and the mystics. Whatever the nature of their "interior prayer" and
"inspiration", their situation cannot simply be transferred to the Prophet.
The instances of the physical accompaniments of the reception of revelation
mentioned in the sources are indeed very few. If, therefore, waf!y was for most of
the time what is called intellectual or imaginative locutions, as Watt says, it is not
understandable why the Prophet should at all have had recourse to the method of
"inducing", i.e., artificially producing the symptoms of revelations. The question
of inducing the symptoms arises only if they are a constant feature or
concomitant of the coming of waf!y. But that is not at all the case. Hence, neither
were the symptoms ever induced by the Prophet nor was the coming of wahy
without those symptoms merely intellectual or imaginative locutions.
The expression "imaginative locution" or "intellectual locution" is in fact a
contradiction in terms. "Locution" means "style of speech", "way of using
words", "phrase or idiom". Poulain says that while "imaginative locution" is
received by the imaginative sense without the assistance of ear, "intellectual
locution" is "a simple communication of thought without words, and
consequently without any definite language". Now, thoughts and ideas, however
abstract, could be conceived or communicated only by means of words and
language, these being their only vehicle. Words are thus inseparable from
thoughts and ideas. Any person, whatever his language, thinks and dreams in his
own language, whether he expresses them vocally or not, or whether he uses the
same set of words or the same language while expressing them. Any person who
has no language can have no idea and no thought. Poulain's definition of
"intellectual locution" as "simple communication of thought" without words and
without language thus appears to be a high-sounding nonsense.
Whatever the sense Poulain and Watt assume for the expressions, the act of
conceiving something, whether intellectually or imaginatively, presupposes the
existence of its essence in the sub-conscious mind of the person concerned. He
must have obtained its impression, idea or image somehow or other at some stage
or other of his life. In the case of the Prophet, despite all the theories of his
having allegedly learnt a good deal from Waraqah ibn Nawfal and other people in
the markets of Makka and elsewhere, it cannot be proved that he had previously
obtained the ideas and information about all that is mentioned or dealt with in the
Qur'an. If, on the other hand, this pre-requisite of the existence of sub-conscious
knowledge or idea is dispensed with, it becomes necessary to import the role of
the "supernatural" in the matter. Watt of course once says that the Prophet might
have received communications "supernaturally".
1
In applying the theory of
intellectual and imaginative locutions to the case of the Qur'anic wal;y, however,
Watt does not at all mention the "supernatural", nor does he identify its
relationship with the process of intellectual and imaginative locutions. In fact, if
the role of the "supernatural" is faithfully and consistently acknowledged, there
would be no need to utilize the "equipment" supplied by Poulain.
It should be clear from the above discussion that Watt has attempted to
substantiate essentially the views of Bell regarding the Qur'anic waljy by adopting,
on the one hand, the latter's interpretation of the term wa!Jy occurring in the
Qur'an and of the Qur'anic passages 53:4-14 and 42:50-52 and, on the other, by
twisting 'A'ishah's (r.a) narration, which he calls Al-Zuhri's report, of the coming
of wa!(y to the Prophet and by having recourse to the "equipment" of "intellectual
I Ibtd, 47.
186 TilE QUR'Ml AND TilE ORIENTALISTS
locution" supplied by A. Poulain. That Bell is grossly mistaken in his
interpretations of the term wab.J and of the Qur'anic passages he cites has already
been shown by an analysis of some of the Qur'anic passages wherein this specific
term occurs in connection with the revelation of the Qur'an. There are, however,
a large number of Qur'anic passages that speak very clearly about the nature of
Qur'anic revelation without employing the term waf.!y. Since neither Bell nor Watt
has taken into consideration these passages, it would be worthwhile to round off
the present discussion by noticing some of them.
III. FUR TilER QuR' ANIC EVIDENCES ON THE NATURE OF TilE QUR' ANIC WAlfY
There are more than 125 passages in the Qur'an which speak of its having
been "sent down" 'anzalnd, etc.) thereby stressing the fact that
what was delivered was a specific text; for an abstract thought or idea or
inspiration is not "sent down". In some of the passages, for instance 6:93, the
expressions 'unifla and 'anzala are very much in apposition to the expressions
and 'awhd. Of the 125 or so times, it is mentioned at least 34 times that
Allah "sent down" (nazzala and 'anzala).
1
Again, Allah Himself speaks in the first
person at least 33 times saying: "We have sent it down" ('anjzaltu, 'anzalnd,
nazzalnJ).
2
More than 40 times it is said in the passive voice that "it has been sent
down" ( 'unifla, 'uniflat, nuziflat, yunazzalu, tunazzalu).
3
And at least 14
times the Qur'an is described as "something sent down" (tanztl,
4
Again,
to remove all doubts about it, Allah Himself bears witness on this point in
unequivocal terms as follows:
.u.J4 J .s:JJ\..JIJ .Jji d:,Ji Jji .u.ii.}:J
"But Allah bears witness that what He has sent down to you He has sent down with His
knowledge (i.e., being fully aware of it); and the angels bear witness (to that); but Allah is enough
for a witness." (4:166)
It is similarly emphasized at least a dozen times that what has been "sent
down" is in a specific language, in Arabic. For instance:
... L.!_r t.;1) .u) \j\
1
The passages are: 2:29; 2:170; 2:231; 3:4; 3:7; 4:61; 4:113; 4:136; 4:166; 5:4; 5:45; 5:47; 5:48; 5:49 (two times); 5:104; 6:91;
6:93; 6:114; 9:97; 16:2; 16:24; 16:30; 16:110; 18:1; 25:6; 31:21; 36:15; 42:15; 42:17; 47:9; 57:9; 65:5 and 65:9.
2
These passages are: 2:41; 2:99; 4:105; 4:174; 5:48; 6:92; 6:115; 10:94; 12:2; 13:37; 14:1; 16:44; 17:105; 17:106; 20:2; 20:113;
21:10; 21:50; 22:16; 24:1; 24:34; 24:46; 29:47; 29:51; 38:29; 39:2; 39:41; 44:3; 58:5; 59:21; 64:8; 76:23 and 97:1.
3
These passages are: 'anzala = 2:4; 2:91; 2:136; 2:185; 2:285; 3:72; 3:84; 3:199; 4:60; 4:162; 5:67; 5:70; 5:71; 5:84; 5:86;
6:156; 6:157; 7:2; 7:3; 7:157; 11:14; 13:1; 13:19; 13:36; 29:46; 34:6; 38:8; 39:55 and 46:30. 'uniflat = 9:86; 9:124; 9:127; 28:87
and 47:20. nu?Xfla = 15:6; 16:44; 25:32; 43:31 and 47:2. nuziflat = 47:20.yunazzalu = 2:105 and 5:104. tuna::a_alu = 9:64.
4
These passages are: 6:114; 17:106; 20:4; 26:192; 32:2; 36:5; 39:1; 40:2; 41:42; 45:2; 46:2; 56:80; 69:43 and 76:23.
WATT'S THEORY OF INTELLECTUAL LOCUTION
"Surely We have sent it down, an Arabic Qur'an .... " (12:2)
...
187
"And certainly it is a sent-down of the Lord of all beings ... in the clear Arabic tongue."
(26:192 ... 195).
1
Moreover, that which has been sent down is collectively as well as severally
described as the Book (Kitab) in more than a score of passages.
2
Some of these
passages are as follows:
y J .y 'Y yl-:SJI J?
"The sending down of the Book, there is no doubt in it, is from the Lord of all the worlds."
(32:2)
... J>-!4 yl-:SJI d.:)l U jl l..il y...;JI ..UI .y yl-:SJI Jp-
"The sending down of the Book is from Allah, the All-Powerful, the All-Wise. Verily it is We
Who have sent down the Book to you in truth ... " (39:1-2) .
.. . 4\ J; ..UI
"Allah sent down the best speech/text as a Book." (39:23)
It is to be noted that in the above quoted passage, what has been sent down is
also described as "speech" or "text" The same description of the Qur'anic
waby occurs in other passages as well. For instance:
... .y J J JJ.l;
"So leave Me and the one who regards as false this text (l;adth) .... " (68:44)
... ..;.i.)L..:> lj\5' 01 .J!.. l_,;t.l;
"So let them then come up with a text (f;adth) like it, if they are truthful." (52:34)
3
Equally significant is that, what is sent down is described as Allah's "Decree"
(l;ukm), His "Command/Order" ('amr). For instance:
... .uy! ..!.ll.is' J
"And thus We have sent it down as a decree/rescript in Arabic." (13:37)
... .0 y! ..UI .r'l
"That is the Command of Allah; He has sent it down to you ... " (65:5)
Again, what is "sent down" is specifically called a surah (chapter). For instance:
4J U jl J La. I.:..,;,} J La.U jl o J.T"
"A surah, We have sent it down and have made it incumbent; and We have sent down in it
clear signs ... " (24:1)
... oJ.T" Jp- .:_,( .:J_,.A.OWI
1
See also Q. 13:37; 16:103; 19:97; 20:113; 39:28; 41:3; 42:7; 43:3; 44:58 and 46:12.
2
See for instance: 2:176; 2:231; 3:3; 3:7; 4:105; 4:113; 4:136; 4:140; 5:48; 6:7; 6:92; 6:114; 6:155; 7:2; 7:196; 14:1; 15:6;
15:9; 16:44; 16:64; 16:89; 17:106; 18:1; 20:2; 21:10; 29:47; 29:51; 38:29; 39:2; 39:41; 42:15; 42:17; 45:2; 46:2; 46:30.
' See also Q. 7:185; 18:6; 45:6; 53:59; 56:81 and 77:50.
188 TIIE QUR'AN AND THE ORIENTALISTS
"The hypocrites fear lest a surah should be sent down against them" (9:64)
1
Further, that which is "sent down" is termed dhikr (citation, account,
narrative, reminder, reminiscence, etc.). For instance:
.:> _,J:,;W .J lil J }'.ill W j lil
"Verily it is We Who have sent down the dhikr, and it is We Who shall certainly preserve it."
(15:9)
.:>r-J J; <,>.ill 1}\.j J
"And they say: 0 the one on whom the dhikr has been sent down, you are indeed mad." (15:6)
... J j t.. <.J"L:..ll .:...,::l .? .ill .;,t,ll w ;f J ...
"And We have sent down to you the dhikr, in order that you explain to men what has been
sent down to them." (16:44)
2
Besides the expression "sending down" there are other terms as well used in
the Qur'an to denote Qur'anic wa(!J. An important term in this series is 'ilqa',
meaning delivering, throwing, flinging, dictating, which is used in a very early
passage, namely, 73:5 which runs as: 'inna sa-nulqf 'alqyka qawlan thaqfld (Verily We
will soon throw on (deliver to) you a weighty word). Another very early passage
wherein the term occurs is 54:25 which states: 'a- 'ulqrya al-dhikr 'alqyhi min
bqynind ... (Has the dhikr been thrown on him, of all of us?"
Of similar import is the expression wassalna, meaning: "We have caused to
reach", used in connection with the delivery of Qur'anic wal;y. Thus 28:51 states:
wa laqad waf{alna lahum al-qawla Ia 'allahum yatadhakkarnn (And We have caused the
word (saying) to reach them so that they may receive admonition."
Similarly there are a number of passages wherein the expressions qasasna (We
narrated)/related) and naquuu (We narrate/relate) bear the same sense of 'awf;qyna
(We communicated) and (We communicate). For instance : Tilka al-qura
naqu[fU 'alqyka min 'anba'iha (fhose are the towns/settlements of which the
accounts We relate to you ... 7:101). wa kullan naqussu 'alqyka min 'anba' al-rusuL..
(And all that We narrate to you of the accounts of the messengers ... 11:120).
Nabnu naquuu 'alqyka naba'ahum bi al-baqq (We narrate to you their accounts in
truth ... 18:13).
3
It is noteworthy that in these passages what is narrated/related is
termed "accounts/reports" 'anba).
Of greater significance are the group of expressions that say "We have it read"
(nuqri'u), "We have read" (qara'nil) and "We recite" (natlU) in lieu of nuqi and
1
See also Q. 9:86; 9:127 and 47:20.
2
See also Q. 7:63; 7:69; 12:104; 21:2; 21:50; 26:5; 36:11; 36:69; 38:1; 38:8; 38:49; 38:87; 41:41; 43:5; 43:44; 54:25; 68:51;
68:52 and 81:27.
' See also Q. 4:164; 6:57; 11:100; 12:3; 16:118; 18:13; 20:99 and 40:78.
'awhcryna. For instance 87:6 states: sa-nuqri'uka fa-/a tansa cyle shall have (it) read
unto you; so you shall not forget). Similarly 75:18 states: fa-'idhd qara'nahu fattabi'
qur'anahu (So when We have it read/recited, then repeat its reading/recitation).
Again, 45:6 states: Tilka 'dyat Allah natluhd 'alcryka bi (Those are the signs of
Allah; We recite that unto you in truth./
It should also be noted that in 28:51, 54:25 and 73:5 quoted above, what is
delivered to (nulqf 'ala) or made to reach (wa![alnti) the Prophet is called i.e.,
saying or word of Allah.
2
This term has the same signification as those of f!adith
(statement, saying, text) and kalimat (words) mentioned earlier. Besides, the
expression qui occurs at least 332 times in the Qur'an, thus emphasizing that the
Messenger of Allah was given the dictation by Allah.
To sum up, there are at least half a dozen different terms used in the Qur'an in
lieu of waf!y to denote the delivery of Qur'anic waf?y to the Prophet. These terms,
to recapitulate, are :
(a) 'Anzalna: "We sent down", in various forms of the root word, and repeated
statements that the Qur'an is something "sent down"
(b) Wap:alna: "We caused to reach".
(c) Nuqri'u/Qara'na: "We have (it) read".
(d) Natlu: "We recite".
(e) Nulqi: "We throw/deliver".
(f) Naquf{U: "We relate/narrate".
All these terms clearly show that what was delivered to the Prophet was in the
form of specific texts. But the evidence is not confined to the import of these
expressions alone. The passages containing them and also those containing the
term waf?y jointly and severally state unequivocally that what was thus delivered
to the Prophet was:
(a) A Qur'an (Reading/Recitation);
(b) A Kitdb (Book/Scripture);
(c) A surah (chapter);
(d) Hadith (statement/ saying) of Allah;
(e) Qawl (saying/word) of Allah;
(f) Kalimat (words) of Allah;
(g) Hukm (a decree/ order) of Allah;
(h) 'Amr (command) of Allah;
1
See also Q. 2:252; 3:28; 3:108.
2
See also Q. 18:39; 23:68; 69:40; 81:19 and 86:13.
(i) 'Anbd' (accounts/narratives) given by Allah.
There are of course other terms and expressions in the Qur'an that refer to the
Qur'anic wa!!J. It should be clear from the above, however, that the divergence
between the Qur'anic evidence on the nature of Qur'anic waqy and the
orientalists' assumptions about it is irreconcilable. Thus, for instance,: (a) The
Qur'an says (and authentic reports repeat the same facts) that Allah sent an
angel-messenger Qibril) with the Qur'anic waf!y to the Prophet. The orientalist, on
the other hand, would have us believe that the coming of the angel to the
Prophet was "probably" and "intellectual" or even an "imaginary" vision on his
part! (b) The Qur'an says that in the initial stage of the receipt of Qur'anic waf!y
the Prophet used hastily to move his tongue to repeat it; but he was asked not to
do so and was assured that Allah would enable him to remember and recite the
text. As against this, the orientalists would say that the Prophet's experience was
"probably" an "exterior" or even an "intellectual" locution! (c) The Qur'an says
that it was Allah's "words" (kalimdt), His "saying" (qawl/ badith), a Book (Kitdb),
etc., that were delivered to the Prophet and that also in the "clear Arabic tongue".
The orientalists would insist that the Prophet had only an "intellectual locution",
"without words" and even "without any specific language"! Clearly, such
assumptions do not have any support in the Qur'an, whatever the "equipment"
with which these might have been framed.
Besides the passages containing the term waf!y and its equivalents, and the
other expressions on the point mentioned before, there are a number of further
facts mentioned in the Qur'an that bear clearly on the nature of Qur'anic waf!y
and show that it did in no way emanate from the Prophet himself, neither
"intellectually", nor "imaginatively", nor lingually. Some of these facts are as
follows:
(1) The Qur'an itself, and therefore the Prophet also, strongly and repeatedly
deny the allegation made by the unbelievers that it was his own composition. It is
further stated that none could be a worse sinner than the one who himself
composed a text and then falsely attributed it to Allah and that if the Prophet did
so he could not have averted severe punishment for that offence.
1
(2) Closely connected with this repeated denial of the allegation is the
challenge which the Qur'an (and therefore the Prophet) throws to the detractors
of all time to come up with a text like that of the Qur'an. It must be noted that
I Q. 3:94; 6:21; 6:93; 6:144; 7:37; 10:17; 10:37-38; 10:69; 11:13; 11:18; 11:35; 16:116; 18:15; 21:15; 25:4; 29:68; 32:3: 42:24;
46:8; 61:7 and 69:44-47. Se also supra, p.
this challenge is not an item of the so-called subsequently developed Islamic
orthodoxy but very much in the Qur'an itself.
1
This challenge still remains open;
but the very fact that it was made at the time means that the Qur'an and the
Prophet denied the allegation of his having himself composed it.
(3) The Qur'an also shows that the unbelievers of the time indirectly admitted
that it was not really the Prophet's own composition; for when they realized that
he was incapable of composing it himself they came up with the alternative
allegation that others had composed it for him. That allegation too was quickly
rebutted.
2
(4) Another indirect admission on their part was that though they asked the
Prophet to produce some specified miracles they could not conceal their surprise
at the extraordinary nature of the Qur'anic text. Thus, whenever a surah or a
Qur'anic passage was given out to them they came out with the remark that it was
"a clear sorcery" (sil;r mubtn), "a magic".
3
They even called him a
"magician/sorcerer" obviously on account of his giving out the Qur'an; for he
had not performed any other magic as such. This shows that they did not at all
consider the Qur'anic texts to be like the ordinary speeches of the Prophet, nor
did they think them to be in any way comparable to the literary compositions they
were habituated to hearing.
(5) It is also noteworthy that the unbelievers repeatedly asked the Prophet to
give them a different Qur'an or to change it. In reply he told them very clearly
that it was not within his power to change even a word of what was wab.J-ied to
him and that he was himself to follow it to the word. With reference to this
demand of the unbelievers the Qur'an states:
,y 0( J L. ji _,( IJ.... _r..S. ..::.JI 0Y""f.. 'Y .:.r..ill Jt; G\A ._}:; _,
... Jl <.? y.. L. 'YI cil 01
"And when Our clear 'qyahs (signs, the Qur'anic texts) are recited unto them, those who do
not hope to meet Us say: 'Bring us a Qur'an (reading/recitation) other than this, or change it.' Say:
'It is not for me that I can change it from myself (on my own accord). I follow naught but what is
w*.ry-ied to me.'' (10:15)
The last sentence of the above passage is also very significant. Not only that
the Prophet did not compose the Qur'an nor was free to change a word of it, he
himself was subject to its dictates and injunctions.
4
I Q. 2:23; 11:13; 52:34.
2
Q. 16:103.
' See for instance Q. 5:110; 6:7; 6:16; 10:76; 11:7; 21:3; 27:13; 34:43; 37:15; 43:30; 46:7; 52:2 and 74:24.
4
See also Q. 6:106; 7:103 and 46:9.
(6) Again, the pre-prophetic life of the Messenger of Allah is cited in bringing
home the fact that the Qur'an was none of his compositions. Thus the 'qyah that
immediately follows the one quoted above states:
0_,1..W ":>l..ii ....y u-- 1_,...-. ~ ~ ...1..0 "-! ~ ~ J ~ r -y) ~ '"P \.. ....u1 ~ L ! . } ~
"Say: 'If Allah had so willed, I would not have recited it unto you; nor would He have made it
known to you. A whole life-time before this have I spent among you. Do you not then
understand?" (10:16)
This 'qyah actually calls attention to three important facts. First, it refers to his
previous character and conduct in general, specially his acknowledged
truthfulness and integrity, thus stressing the fact that he was not the sort of a
person who would, all of a sudden, appear before his community with a false
claim about himself and also about the teachings he was giving out to them.
Second, it draws attention to the fact that for at least forty years of his life prior
to his call he had never shown any desire to be a leader of his people nor had
expressed any intention to carry out a socio-religious reform of his society. Third,
and most important of all, he had never exhibited any literary skill or ambition
and had never before the coming of waf.!y to him composed a single sentence of
literary Arabic. This fact is decisive; for it is common knowledge that a person
who has no literary experience or training cannot all of a sudden produce first
class, or rather incomparable literary compositions even if he is supplied with the
ideas and facts from another source.
(7) The Qur'an also contains a number of statements about scientific facts of
which the meaning and significance are becoming clear with the progress of
scientific knowledge in recent times.
1
This shows that the Prophet or any one of
his alleged assistants could not have composed the texts.
Thus the Qur'an strongly and in various ways contradicts the assumption that
it was the Prophet's own composition based on "suggestions" or "inspiration"
received from another source or an "intellectual locution" without any words or
definite language. In fact the modern orientalist's approach to the subject seems
to suffer from an inherent contradiction. He seems to profess belief in God and
His sending of angels with His words and messages to the Old and New
Testament Prophets and other chosen individuals; but in dealing with
Mu};lammad (p.b.h.) and the Qur'an he slips away from that position and takes a
secularist stance in that he in effect argues that since the phenomena of an angel's
coming with God's words to a Prophet or God's communicating His words to
Supra, pp. 71-88.
WAIT'S THEORY OF INTELLECTUAL LOCUTION 193
him in other ways do not appear to be in accord with ordinary human
understanding and experience, the Qur'an's and Mul)ammad's (p.b.h.) state'ments
to such effects should be interpreted with the help of "mystic", "psychological"
and "philosophical" equipment. Even then, the modern orientalist appears to be
aware that what he adduces as the proofs of the Qur'an and the traditions about
the nature of Qur'anic waf!y is mostly forced, unnatural and "tendential shaping"
of the texts and facts and that there still remains much in both the sources that
contradicts his assumptions. Hence, to make up the deficiency, he has had
recourse to the advertisements of the Prophet's sincerity in order to deny the
truth of what he says. The Prophet was sincere, it is said, and he conscientiously
believed in what he said, but he was nonetheless mistaken in what he believed
and said. He said that the Qur'anic waf!y was a verbal communications of the texts
in Arabic. The orientalist says: "No, the Prophet only sincerely believed and
thought it to be so; but actually he received some ideas and thoughts -it was only
a matter of his mind and intellect, an aspect of his special consciousness, an
imaginative or intellectual locution. He even at times "induced" the receipt of
such suggestions and ideas. The statements of the Qur'an and of Mul:).ammad
(p.b.h.) on the one hand, and those of the modern orientalist, on the other, are
thus poles apart. It is difficult to see how these views are in any way different
from what the Quryash unbelievers of Makka used to say before their acceptance
of Islam that the Qur'anic waf(y was the Prophet's "medleys of dreams" ('adghdth
'al;lam),
1
or what William Muir said that it was the Prophet's "trance utterance" or
what Margoliouth said that it was the natural conclusion which comes into one's
mind after prolonged deliberation and consideration over a certain matter. In
their views regarding the Qur'an and the Qur'anic waf(y, thus, the modern
orientalists stand in effect on the same plane where the Makkan unbelievers stood
some fourteen hundred years ago and where William Muir and his
contemporaries stood a century and a half ago.
I Q. 21:15.
PART III
THE 0RIENTALISTS ON THE HrsTORY AND TEXT oF THE QuR' AN
CHAPTER VIII
ON THE HISTORY OF THE QUR'AN:
I. THEODORE NOLDEKE'S ASSUMPTIONS
I. THE BASIC FACfS
1
The sources make it clear that Mul;lammad, peace and blessings of Allah be
on him, received from Allah and gave out the Qur'an in instalments throughout
his mission for a period of twenty-three years between 610 and 632 C. E.
Sometimes he received and gave out a complete surah, sometimes only a part of it
consisting of a few 'qyahs. Indeed, the very first instalment which he received and
gave out was 'qyahs 1-5 of surah 96 (al-'alaq). The surahs and passages of surahs
were communicated to him by Allah through the angel fibril on suitable occasions
and circumstances of his mission giving the most appropriate guidance and
directives. As he received each piece of the Qur'an he gave it out immediatefy to his
people. The report of Khalid al-'Udwani noted before
2
saying that he memorised
surat al-Tariq (86) while he was still an unbeliever by simply hearing the Prophet
recite it is very significant in this regard. Any impartial reader of the Qur'an,
whether he believes it to be divine in origin or not, cannot fail to be struck by the
absolute contemporaneity of its text with the mission and activities of the
Prophet and the development of the Muslim community under his leadership.
The Qur'an itself contains indisputable evidence of its gradual but immediate
promulgation in parts as they were received. "A Qur'an We have sectionalized it
that you may recite it to the people at intervals; and We have sent it down in
gradual sending down"/ so runs 'qyah 106 of surah 17. "And there say those who
disbelieve: 'Why is not there sent down on him the Qur'an as a whole?' This is so
that We may make firm thereby your heart; and We have recited it in a regular
order", says '4Jah 32 of surah 25.
4
Yet another '4Jah, 10:15, states: "And when
recited to them are Our sings open and clear, there say those who do not look
forward to meeting Us: 'Bring us a Qur'an other than this or alter it.' Say: 'Itis not
for me that I can alter it of my own accord. I follow naught but what is
communicated to me.''
5
There are many '4Jahs and surahs in the Qur'an
1
See for a detailed account , M. M. AI- The Hirtory of the Qur'dnic Text from Revelation to Compilation, Leicester, 2003.
2
Silpra, p. 178.
' The text runs as follows: "J.,y; oWj J J.<'-"WI Js- lil,) J
4
The text runs as ,w.;; J !l>l_ll-., .:.+].!ll.il"" i.c.-IJ <4.. 01,_;11 J; '! _,J IJ_,iS" .:r..iJI Jli J
5
The text runs as: Jl.....-y.L.o '!IC:"f01..,..-i' '-'W;0"' .O.t,f01 J L.o Ji <l.t, JII.C. .r.1- 01,_;, ..:..Jili,W 0_,...r. '! .:r..iJI Jli r-+# J:J bl J
demonstrating the immediate promulgation of a surah or a passage as it was
received by the Prophet.
1
Indeed the contemporaneity of the text of the Qur'an
with the life and activities of the Prophet is so glaring that an unbelieving reader
is apt to be misled into an impression that Mu}:lammad, peace and blessings of
Allah be on him, himself composed and gave out the passages or surahs as the
situation and circumstances arose.
The receipt and giving out of the surahs or parts of the surahs were not
consecutive. This means that neither are the surahs as they appear in the complete
Qur'an were given out in the same order, nor were the different passages of the
same surahs, which contain separately promulgated passages, given out one after
another. Rather, different passages of different surahs were given out on different
occasions so that a passage given out earlier is sometimes joined with passages
given out later and are thus included in one surah, and vice versa. There are a few
surahs which are generally categorised as Makkan contain passages given out at
Madina. The order of the passages in each surah, even if given out at different
times, as well as the order of the surahs in the complete Qur'an, be they Makkan
or Madinan, were both settled by the Prophet under divine directives and in
accordance with an arche-type preserved with Allah. These facts are attested,
besides a number of authentic reports, by the Qur'an itself. "Verily it is a noble
Qur'an, in a Book well-guarded", so declare its 'qyahs 56:77-78.
2
"Nay, this is a
Qur'an most sublime, in a tablet well-preserved", declare 'qyahs 85:21-22.
3
The
"tablet well-preserved" mentioned here may be well understood in terms of the
modern concept of a "hard disc". Again, the Prophet is assured by Allah about
his remembering the texts as well as their gathering and arrangement as follows:
"Move not with it your tongue to hasten with it. Verily upon Us is its collection
and recitation. So when We recite it follow its recitation."
4
The Prophet is here
asked not to move hurriedly his tongue to repeat and remember the texts as they
were being delivered to him and is assured that he will be enabled to remember
them and To collect and arrange them in their proper order.
The last mentioned passage informs us that the Prophet tried and was enabled
to remember each surah or passage as it was communicated to him. This is
1
See for instance, 6:7; 8:31; 10:16; 19:73; 22:72; 29:51; 31:7; 33:34; 34:43; 45:7; 45:25; 46:7; 68:15; 73:13; and .riirah.r 58; 63;
80; 111.
2
The text runs as follows: 0 p.. y\5 .} t<.J' 01, _,;! ..;1
' The text runs as follows: J; ~ c,J .} .1,-o 01,} r J<
4
75:16-18. The text runs as follows: .;I,} ciu , ~ , ; ! ; 1;t,; .;I,} J.......,. ~ 01 .., J-::1.!.1U.., !l_,..;-;
NODELKE ON THE HISTORY OF THE QUR'AN 199
reiterated in another 'qyah as follows: 'We shall make you recite; so you shall not
forget."
1
In fact he committed to memory each and every surah and passage of the
Qur'an as they were communicated to him. So did many of his companions. The
necessity for doing so was that the daily prayers which the believers were from
the beginning commanded to perform consisted mainly of recitation of some
Qur'anic surahs or passages together with bowing and prostration. An early
Qur'anic passage commands the Prophet to spend more or less a half of the night
standing in prayer and reciting the Qur'an in regular order.
2
And the last 'qyah of
the same surah confirms that he indeed used to spend two-thirds or so of the
night standing in prayer and reciting the Qur'an; and so did a group of his
companions.
3
The Prophet himself taught many of his early followers the Qur'an.
In fact his preaching consisted mainly of the giving out of the texts of the Qur'an
as they were received and reciting and teaching them. Whenever a preacher was
sent to any place for preaching Islam he was invariably a Qur'an-teacher (muqri)
who had memorized the Qur'an. Mus'ab ibn 'Umayr, who was sent to Madina
prior to the migration to preach Islam among its people was such a
Qur'an-teacher. The seventy of the Prophet's companions who were .sent on a
mission to Bi'r Ma'unah and were there treacherously killed by the inimical tribes
were all Qur'an-teachers (qurra}.
4
In the course of time the Prophet as well as
many of his followers had the entire Qur'an committed to memory.
5
At intervals,
particularly in the month of Ramadan, the Prophet used to recite the whole
Qur'an, as far as it was received, to the angel Jibril; and during the last Ramadan
of his life he recited the entire Qur'an twice before that angel.
6
Simultaneously with this process of memorization the Prophet also had the
surahs and passages of the Qur'an, as they were communicated to him, written
down on suitable objects like tree-leaves, bones, hides, barks, stones and the like.
A number of his literate companions acted as his scribes in this respect.
7
Indeed
the impetus to have the texts written down was given in the very first passage
communicated him. It emphasizes, among other things, the acquisition and
preservation of knowledge by means of the pen.
8
In another early passage Allah
1
87:6 . The text runs as follows: u-" )l.i .!.ll _;,..-
2 73:1-4. The text runs as follows: ";N; .01, _.ill jl; J .o# 'j } )l.,li """ ..,._;;1 Jl u.,.; )l.,li '\'1 j,l!l ~ J-_;.lllf,{,
' 73:20. The text runs as follows: .......... .!)... .;r..lJI if wU. J & J u.,.; J j,l!l c? if u''l r ,z .!.].;\ ,....., .!.-4; .01
4
Bukhdri, nos. 4088-4090
5
See Al-Dhahabi, Tadhkirat al-lj.ujJil'{, ed. 'Abd ai-Ra&mi!n ibn Ya(.ryil ai-Ma'lami, 3 vols., Makka, 1374 H.
6
Bukbilri, nos. 1902, 4997, 4998.
7
See M. M. ' A ' ~ a m i , Kuttiib ai-Nabf Sallahhahu 'Aiayhi wa sa/lama, (Arabic text), Beirut, 1394.
swears "by the pen and what they write" \... J J).
2
Also, the Qur'an is
called at least seventy times in it as the Kitab (Book, Scripture, Writing) and at one
place Allah swears by it as: " And by a Book, written down" (J_,l..-.. yi..::S" J).
3
Written records of the Qur'anic texts were kept with the Prophet as well as with
many of his followers. The story of Fatimah hint having concealed a
written sheet of the Qur'anic text at the approach of her enraged brother, 'Umar
ibn al-Khattab's (r.a.) to her house and then of her having shown it to him when
he calmed down and his ultimate conversion to Islam on a perusal of it is
well-known to any student of Islamic history. After the migration to Madina four
of the 'an{arwere particularly employed for writing down the Qur'anic texts.
4
One
report has it that the Prophet once warned his companions not to write down all
his statements and utterances lest they should be mixed up with the texts of the
Qur'an.
5
The communication of the Qur'an was completed and the last instalment of it
was received by the Prophet only a few days before his death. When he died
written records of the Qur'an texts were in his house as well as with many of his
Companions. Besides, his scribes like Zayd ibn Thabit and many other
Companions had memorized the whole Qur'an. Almost immediately after the
Prophet's death a number of Arab tribes made an attempt to secede from the
authority of Madina. In the wars that followed, the riddah wars, many l{uffaz
(retainers of the entire Qur'an in memory) died. Hence, at 'Umar ibn
suggestion the first khalfjah Abu Bakr took steps to have the written records of
the Qur'anic texts arranged in the order of the surahs and sections as taught by the
Prophet and as learnt by the l{uffaz. The task was entrusted to Zayd ibn Thabit
and a public announcement was made for anyone having anything of the Qur'an
with him to come up with it and deliver it to either 'Umar ibn al-Khattab and
Zayd ibn Thabit. The latter, though he was himself a Mfiz (retainer of the entire
Qur'an in memory), was instructed not to accept anything merely because it was
written down but to compare it with the recitation of a f.J!ifiz .
6
Zayd himself
states: "So I collected the Qur'an from palm leaves, thin stones and bones [i. e.,
on which the texts were written] and the hearts of men [i. e., comparing with the
I 96:4-5.
' 67:1.
' 52:2.
4
Bukhdri, nos. 3810, 3996, 5003, 5004; Muslim, no. 2465; Musnad, III, 233, 277; Taydlisf, no. 2018.
5
Muslim, no. 3004.
6
Al-Suytiti, AI-Itqdn, I, p. 166.
NODELKE ON THE HISTORY OF THE QUR' AN 201
recitation of the &uffaiJ; and I found the last 'qyah of surat al-tawbah with 'Abu
Khuzaymah al-Ansari. I did not find it with anyone else."
1
This last statement is
very significant. Zayd knew the 'qyah in question and retained it in memory; but
he did not include it in the collection until he found a written record of it with
'Abu Khuzaymah Even with regard to the written records nothing was
accepted unless it was attested by independent witnesses that it was written in the
presence of the Prophet.
2
Thus a master-copy of the Qur'an was made and it was
kept with 'Abu Bakr during his life-time, then with 'Umar and, after his death,
with his daughter 'Umm al-Mu'mintn

During the khilafah of 'Uthman (24-35 H.) a tendency towards variant readings
of the Qur'an was detected in the far-flung provinces. Hence he took immediate
steps to make copies of the Qur'an from the master-copy in keeping and
to send them to the various provinces. He appointed a commission for this task
headed by the same Zayd ibn Thabit who was at that time the chief-justice of
Madina. The other members of the commission were 'Abd Allah ibn Zubayr,
Sa'id ibn and 'Abd al-Raqman ibn al-Ijarith ibn Hisham. They were
instructed to address themselves mainly to the variations that had crept up in the
recitation, i. e., vocalization and pronunciation, and were asked, in case of
noticing any difference with regard to any 'qyah or expression, to find out any
person whom the Prophet had himself taught to recite the 'qyah or expression in
question and to ascertain the correct mode of recitation. If no such person was
found with regard to any 'qyah or expression and there existed a difference in its
mode of reading they were directed to adopt the reading or dialect of Quraysh,
for the Qur'an was sent down in their dialect. The Commission meticulously
followed the procedure and made several copies of the Qur'an which were sent to
the different provinces with instructions to withdraw and suppress any variation
in the reading found to exist anywhere.
4
Since then the same Qur'an has been in circulation in writing as it has been
also preserved and transmitted from generation to generation through
memorization of its entire text. The practice of memorization continues still
today in spite of the tremendous progress in the art of printing and in
photo-mechanical and electronic reproduction and retrieval systems. Indeed the
act of memorizing the Qur'an and of learning it and teaching it has been assigned
1
Bukhdri, n.o. 4986.
2
Al-Suyil!i, op. cit.
' Bukhdri, nos. 4986, 4989,7191.
4
op. cit., pp. 168-171.
great religious merit by the Prophet so that even today Muslims can count among
their ranks millions of of the entire Qur'an, whereas it is hard to find
among the votaries of other religious systems a single individual who can recite
from memory even a whole chapter from his sacred text. Also, since the
Prophet's time it has been the continual practice of Muslims for all climes to
complete the recitation of the whole Qur'an through the month-long special
nighdy tarawth prayer during the month of Rama9an. No other people on earth
have shown so much avidity and taken so meticulous a care to preserve the purity
of their sacred Book as the Muslims have done.
It should be noted, however, that at the time of 'Uthman (r.a.) the Arabic
script was not yet fully developed. The letters that have now-a-days dots above or
below them were without dots (nuqat), there were no vowel signs (tashkfl/ l;arakaf)
and hamzahs were not written. These did not however cause any problem for the
Arabs; for they could recognize the specific letters from the context. So could the
l;arakat be dispensed with for a person who knew the language. (Even in modern
times Arabic books and news papers are printed without l;arakat .)The difficulties
that might be faced by non-Arabs in reading and reciting the Qur'an because of
the absence of these were however removed before long. Thus, during the khilffah
of 'Ali ibn 'Abi Tilib (r.a.) and under his instruction the famous Arabic
grammarian 'Abu al-Aswad al-Du'ali (d. 69 H.) completed the task of putting
l;arakat on the Qur'anic text; while his two students, Na$r ibn (d. 89) and
YaJ:tya ibn Ya'mar (d. 100) completed the task of putting dots (nuqa.!J on the
letters during the khilafah of 'Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan (d. 86 H.). 'Abu 'Amr
Mubammad ibn Sa'id al-Dani, a fifth century scholar of Qur'anic studies, states
that he saw an old copy of the Qur'an "written during the beginning of the
Caliphate of Hisham ibn 'Abd al-Malik .... by Mughirah ibn Mina, in Rajab, in the
year 110 A. H. It had tashkt4 the hamzahs and the dots ... "
1
II. N6LDEKE's AssuMPTIONS
Within the framework of the above mentioned facts the orientalists fit in their
assumptions and theories, sometimes twisting and misinterpreting them,
sometimes ignoring or casting doubts on them, but mosdy making unwarranted
surmises and assumptions. The process in its modern phase started early in the
second half of the nineteenth century. In fact the main lines of the orientalists'
1
Quoted in Abu Ammar Yasir Qadhi, An IntrodJMion to the Sciences oftbeQur'dn, Birmingham, 1999, p. 144.
approach were indicated by Muir and Sprenger whose works were published in
the fifties and early sixties of the century. But the first systematic work on the
subject was the Geschichte des Qorans (History of the Qur'an) of Theodore Noldeke
which was published for the first time in 1860.
1
Drawing on the Islamic sources,
mainly on al-Tabari's commentaries
2
and al-Suytip's Itqan\ Noldeke concentrated
on the internal or textual history of the Qur'an. Taking his cue from the basic
facts of the gradual coming down of the Qur'anic texts, the composition of the
surahs by a combination of the passages received at different times and their
"occasions" as narrated in the Muslim sources Noldeke attempted to identify the
dates of the Qur'anic passages as well as of the surahs. In the process he discussed
what he conceived to be the Judaeo-Christian origins of the Qur'an, the nature of
the Qur'anic wab.J, the nature and character of the Prophet and the literary merit
of the Qur'an, reflecting and reiterating the usual orientalist views on these,
mainly those of George Sale, William Muir and Aloys Spremger. He also dealt
with the "collection" and publication of the entire Qur'an during the times of Abu
Bakr and 'Uthman (r.a.).
In tracing the dates of the Qur'anic passages (apart from the surahs) Noldeke
does not in most cases follow the occasions of revelations given in the Muslim
sources but proceeds on two main assumptions, namely, (a) that many of the long
surahs are the result of an amalgamation of various originally distinct revelations
and, (b) the supposed differences in literary style, "abrupt" changes in the subject
matter and interruption in the connection of thought. On the basis of these two
assumptions he severs out many pieces of long surahs as originally independent,
assigning them supposed dates. His object in doing so is to show that the Qur'an
is, as he sees it, a patchwork of incoherent themes and episodes.
He follows more or less the same logic in tracing the chronological order of
the surahs. Thus, he divides the surahs into four periods, the early Makkan, the
mid-Makkan, the late Makkan and the Madinan, fixing the chronological order of
each group according to the length, theme, literary style and what he conceives to
be the "convulsive excitement" of the early group, the gradual diminishing of the
glow and fervour of the middle and late Makkan groups and the "prosaic" tone of
the Madinan group of surahs, using as far as it suits his purpose the known
1
Subsequently edited and enlarged by Schwally, Pretzl and Bergstrasser and published in three volumes between 1909
and 1938.
2
Al-Tabari, jdmi' al-Baydn.ft T afrir al-Qur'dn.
' Al-Itqdn .ft Vltlm al-Qur'dn.
"occasions" of revelations. Needless to say that his chronological order of the
surahs differs considerably from that given by the Muslim sources.
As regards the collection and publication of the Qur'an under 'Abu Bakr and
'Uthman (r. a.) Noldeke's main assumptions are that Zayd ibn Thabit collected
the texts, "edited/redacted" them, combined the many originally independent
passages into surahs and arranged them in the present order; and that nonetheless
the Qur'an is not complete.
Subsequently to the publication of his Geschichte Noldeke modified some of his
extreme and obviously untenable views. A good summary of his later views is his
article on the Qur'an which he wrote for the 1891 edition of the Enryclopaedia
Britannica.
1
His first notable modification is with regard to the severing of
passages from long surahs and assigning them separate dates. He now recognized
that although many long and even short surahs contain passages revealed at
different dates, the "sifting operation" should not be carried too far, "as", he
admits, " I now believe myself to have done in my earlier works, and as Sprenger
in his great book on Muhammad also sometimes seenis to do."
2
He further
recognizes that some surahs of considerable length, such as XII, XVIII and XX,
are "perfectly homogeneous" and that even in the case of a surah containing
separate narrations we are to note "how readily the Koran passes from one
subject to another" and that therefore we are not at liberty "in every case where
the connection in the Koran is obscure, to say that it is really broken, and set it
down as the clumsy patchwork of a later hand ... In short, ... in the majority of
cases the present suras are identical with the originals."
3
It must at once be added
that had Noldeke been able to emancipate himself completely from the usual
orientalist's bias he could have seen that the Qur'an is not at all a heterogeneous
collection and that it is not only in the "majority of cases" but in all cases the
surahs are identical with the originals.
With regard to his classification of the surahs as early Makkan, Mid-Makkan,
late Makkan and Madinan Noldeke does not much modify his earlier position;
but he now at least recognizes the difficulty involved in the task and the relative
or subjective nature of his work. In particular he notes that "it is far easier to
arrange in some sort of chronological order" the Madinan surahs than the Makkan,
for "the revelations given in Medina frequently take notice of events about which
1
Encydopaedia Britannica, 9th edition, 1891, Vol. 16, pp. 597 ff; reproduced in Ibn Warraq (ed.), The Origin.r oftbe Koran
C/a.uit E.r.ray.r on !Jiam'.r Holy Book, Prometheus Books, New York, 1998, pp. 36-63.
2
Ibid., p. 38.
' Ibid., pp. 38-39.
NO OELKE ON TilE HISTORY OF TilE QUR'AN 205
we have pretty accurate information" while, with regard to the Makkan
revelations, allusions to well-known events are not so clear.
1
He further admits
that although a considerable number of the short surahs may be recognized as the
oldest and the others may be classified as mid-Makkan and late Makkarr, with
"regard to some suras, it may be doubtful whether they ought to be reckoned
among the middle group, or with one or the other of the extremes. And it is
altogether impossible, within these groups, to establish even a probable
chronological arrangement of the individual revelations .... It is better, therefore,
to rest satisfied with a merely relative determination of the order of even the three
great clusters of Meccan revelations. "
2
Ill. EXAMINATION OF N0LDEKE
1
S AsSUMPTIONS
Thus, by Noldeke's own admission, his chronological arrangement of the
passages and surahs is only probable and relative. Even the criteria employed by him
to make this admittedly uncertain and probable dating of the passages and surahs
are wrong and illogical. He fixes his attention on what he supposes to be the
differences in the literary style of the various parts of the Qur'an and speaks of
the "convulsive excitement" of the early group of surahs and passages, the gradual
diminishing of the fervour and glow of the middle and late Makkan groups and
the "prosaic" tone of the Madinan group. In doing so he is mistaken in two ways.
He assumes that Mu]:lammad, peace and blessings of Allah be on him, himself
composed the surahs and passages of the Qur'an and that his literary style
gradually declined with the passage of time. This assumption is belied by the
literary history of any writer or language. If we look at the literary productions of
any notable writer, such as Shakespeare, Bernard Shaw or Rabindranath Tagore,
we seldom notice any gradual decline in their style and mode of writing over the
years. The special style and impress of each writer can be easily detected in his
early and later literary productions. If there is any change over the years, it is
usually in the reverse direction of gradual improvement in the mode of
expression and depth of thought. Any decline in the style of one's literary
productions, if it ever takes place, is almost invariably connected with one's
physical and mental decline. In the case of the Prophet nothing of the sort can be
assumed. Moreover, the Meccan period of his mission lasted for only twelve
years, coinciding with the prime of his life from the fortieth to the fifty-second
year of his age. It is highly unreasonable to assume that his presumed literary style
I Ibid., PP 49-50.
2
Ibid., pp. S0-51.
underwent such a sharp decline within one decade that three distinct groups
could be identified in his productions during this time!
Secondly, Noldeke first assumes a gradual decline in the literary style of the
Qur'an and then applies this criterion for determining the dates of its passages
and surahs. Such a procedure is methodologically improper and factually incorrect.
Proper methodology requires the taking into consideration of the reported
"occasions" of revelation of the different passages and surahs, as far as possible,
and collating it with other available data for the purpose. Noldeke has not done
so and has often allowed his assumption to override the known "occasions" of
the revelations. Factually, the generalization of gradual decline in the literary style
of the Qur'anic revelations is totally untenable. There are many passages of the
Qur'an identified by Noldeke himself as Madinan that have similar rhyme,
rhythm and strain as those of the Makkan surahs. There are of course differences
in the mode of expression and phraseology depending on the themes and subjects
dealt with; but throughout the Qur'an has a distinctive and unique literary style.
Any person having an acquaintance with the Qur'an and Arabic language can
easily distinguish any passage of the Qur'an from any passage of any other Arabic
literary production, medieval or modern. The utter untenability of Noldeke's
chronological arrangement of the Qur'anic passages and surahs is highlighted by
the fact that it is not accepted even by his fellow orientalists. Thus Rodwell came
forward with a different chronological arrangement of the surahs in his translation
of the Qur'an which was published just one year after the first appearance of
Noldeke's work;
1
while William Muir made yet another chronological list a little
afterwards.
2
Further divergent dating of the passages and surahs have been made
by other subsequent orientalists. And all these are equally untenable and on
similar grounds. Nor is the purpose of such an exercise, namely, to t r a ~ e the
psychological development of the Prophet by means of the Qur'an, is likely to be
fruitfully achieved; for, as Noldeke further admits, "in such an undertaking one is
always apt to take subjective assumptions and/ or mere fancies for established
data."
3
Most objectionable are, however, Noldeke's assumptions in connection with
the collection and publication of the Qur'an under 'Abu Bakr and 'Uthman (r.a.).
To begin with, he calls this work as the first and the second "redaction"
1
J. M. Rodwell, The Koran: Translated from the Arabic, the .rurah.r arranged in chronrllogica/ order, with note.r and index, London,
1861.
2
See W. Muir, The Qur'dn: Itr composition and Teaching etc., London, 1897.
' Ibn Warraq, op.cit., p. SO.
NO OELKE ON TilE HISTORY OF THE QUR'AN 207
respectively of the Qur'an. It must at once be pointed out that the word
"redaction" has a wide meaning including editing, working into shape, reducing,
preparing a version and the like. Subsequent orientalists have not only adopted
this definition but have effected a transition from it to "recension", i. e., critical
revision of a text. No editing, revision or new version of the Qur'an was ever
made, neither under 'Abu Bakr, nor under 'Uthman (r.a.), nor subsequently.
Noldeke's characterizing the work of collecting the texts in one compilation as
"redaction" is both incorrect and misleading.
Noldeke so prefaces his account of the collection under 'Abu Bakr (r.a.) as to
substantiate the notion of "redaction". Thus he says: "Many Muslims knew large
portions by heart, but certainly no one knew the whole; and a merely oral
propagation would have left the door open to all kinds of deliberate and
inadvertent alterations."
1
Earlier he says that it cannot be supposed that the
Prophet "knew the longer suras by heart so perfectly that he was able after a time
to lay his finger upon any particular passage."
2
And now Noldeke further states
that the Prophet "himself had never thought of an authentic collection of his
revelations," that "he was concerned only with the object of the moment" and
had no idea that these "would be destroyed unless he made provision for their
safe preservation" and that, being a "man destitute of literary culture", had "some
difficulty in anticipating the fate of intellectual products."
3
Now, Noldeke is palpably wrong in each and every item of his above
mentioned remarks and observations. First, he says that none of the Prophet's
companions, not even the Prophet himself, knew the whole Qur'an by heart. It is
further said that he did not even perfectly remember the long surahs. This
statement is grossly arbitrary and unwarranted. Many of the Prophet's
companions, and the Prophet himself, knew the whole Qur'an by heart. As
already mentioned, there are authentic reports to the effect that at intervals,
specially during the month of Rama<;lan, the Prophet used to recite the whole
Qur'an, as far as it was received, to the angel Jibril; and that during the last
Ramac;lan of his life he recited the entire Qur'an twice before that angel.
4
Noldeke
does not seem to be unaware of these reports; but he disregards these and does
not give his reasons for doing so. He simply assumes that the Prophet could not
have probably remembered the long surahs. In making this assumption Noldeke
I Ibid., P 56.
2
Ibid., p. 40.
' Ibid., p. 56.
4
Bukhilrf, nos. 1902, 4997, 4998.
seems to have been influenced by the fact that none m the West cares to
remember any considerable part of his religious text and by his oversight of the
fact that even today many of an ordinary Muslim learns the entire Qur'an by heart
and recites it entirely during the month-Long nightly (tarawfh) prayer during
Ram a<;! an.
Secondly, Noldeke is equally wrong in saying that "a merely oral propagation
would have left the door open to all kinds of deliberate and inadvertent
alterations." As already mentioned, the Qur'an was not propagated merely orally.
Simultaneously with oral transmission and memorization, it was preserved also in
writing. Noldeke himself notes a little earlier in his essay that at Makka the
Prophet "had already begun to have his oracles committed to writing."
1
Noldeke
is here so much eager to assail the Qur'an that he fails to see his own
inconsistency in making the downright false suggestion that the Qur'an was
propagated merely orally leaving the door open for all kinds of deliberate and
inadvertent alterations!
Thirdly, the undeniable fact that the Prophet had taken steps since an early
period of his mission to have the Qur'anic revelations written down, and
Noldeke's admission of this fact both illustrate the inconsistency and
incorrectness of his other statement that the Prophet "himself had never thought
of an authentic collection of his revelations", that he "was concerned only with
the object of the moment" and had no idea that "these would be destroyed unless
he made provision for their preservation", and that, being a "man destitute of
literary culture" had "some difficulty in anticipating the fate of intellectual
products." It is not at all true that the Prophet was "concerned only with the
object of the moment". Not to mention his famous saying: "Convey from me
even if it be an 'qyah", the Qur'an itself squarely belies this assumption. "And this
Qur'an has been communicated to me", says its 'qyah 6:19, "that I may warn you
therewith and those whom it reaches ~ ,y J " ~ J J : , ~ .JT_;ll I.U Jl ..r-} J). And
conscious of this fact he arranged for having each and every passage of the
Qur'an as it came down to him to be written down. Moreover, as an additional,
and under the circumstances safer mode of preservation, he committed to
memory each and every passage as it was revealed to him and taught his followers
to do so. In fact, of all the Prophets and religious teachers, he is the only one who
memorized his scripture and made it a religious duty for his followers to
1
Ibn Warraq, op. cit., p. 40.
memorize at least a good portion of it; for the obligatory prayers of the Muslims
cannot be performed except on memorizing parts of the Qur'an. Also, great
religious merit was attached to memorizing the whole Qur'an. Such provision is
not to be found in the teachings of any other religious teacher. And as a result of
such behest of the Prophet, thousands of Muslims do in fact commit the entire
Qur'an to memory even today. Noldeke is totally wrong in saying that no Muslim,
not even the Prophet, knew the whole Qur'an by heart. As mentioned earlier, the
Prophet and many of his companions knew the whole Qur'an by heart. When he
died, the whole Qur'an was preserved through systematic memorization as well as
in writing on suitable materials; though the written materials were not collected in
one compilation. The very fact that the Qur'anic revelations continued to come
till the last few days of his life meant that the collection of the complete texts in
one compilation had to be effected only after his death. That is exacdy what was
eventually done. Nothing could be farther from the truth than Noldeke's
statement that the "idea that the revelations would be destroyed" unless provision
was made for their safe preservation "did not enter" the Prophet's mind.
Noldeke also gives a twist to the account of Zayd ibn Thabit's work of
collection under Abu Bakr and says that Zayd collected the revelations from
copies written on flat stones, pieces of leather, ribs of palm-leaves and such-like
material, "but chiefly 'from the breasts of men' , i. e., from their memory. From
these he wrote a fair copy, which he gave to Abu Bakr.... This redaction,
commonly called as-fu4uf (the leaves'), had from the first no canonical authority;
and its internal arrangement can only be conjectured. "
1
Clearly the statement is
based on the famous statement of Zayd given in Bukhdri and noted earlier; but
Noldeke gives a subde twist by using the word "chiefly" before" from the breasts
of men, i. ,e., from their memory", thereby giving the impression that part of the
Qur'an was collected from written copies but mosdy it was collected from
people's memory. This was not at all the case. There is no mention of "chiefly" or
any other expression to that effect before the phrase "the breasts of men"
mentioned in the report. The relevant part of the report runs as: "So I collected
the Qur'an from palm leaves, thin stones and bones and the hearts of men; and I
found the last 'qyah of sural a/-tawbah with 'Abu Khuzaymah I did not
find it with anyone else."
2
It is noteworthy that Zayd does not say "and from the
I Ibid., P 56.
2
Bukbdrf, n.o. 4986. The text runs as follows: >....,7 ..,.t c: '<.fli "";y /1 u.J... J J Jl.. )I ;J"- J Jl>..lliJ ..,_.Ji ./ ......,.! 0l,.iJI .:...-,=i
, r.' C: l.o.J...I <,>;L ;\11
hearts of men" but simply "and the hearts of men". As already mentioned,
1
he
was instructed to compare the memorized texts with the written copies and this
statement of his means that he made the collection by comparing the written
copies with the texts memorized by the Prophet's Companions. This is clear from
the last part of the statement which says that he found the last 'qyah of surat
ai-Tawbah with Abu Khuzaymah which he did not find with anyone
else. Zayd himself knew the Qur'an by heart and knew that the 'qyah in question
was the last 'qyah of surat ai-Tawbah; but he did not include it in the collection until
he found a written copy of it. This shows the extreme care taken in making the
collection and in ensuring that nothing but the texts preserved in writing as well
as in memory was included in it.
As regards the preparation and distribution of authorized copies of the Qur'an
during the khilijah of 'Othman, Noldeke makes a number of assumptions. First,
he says that Zayd ibn Thabit and the other members of the commission who
were entrusted with the task "brought together as many copies as they could lay
their hands on, and prepared an edition which was to be canonical for all
Muslims .. "
2
Then he says that "we have no trustworthy information" about how
they carried out the work. "It now seems to me highly probable", asserts Noldeke,
"that this second redaction took this simple form: Zaid read off from the codex
which he had previously written, and his associates, simultaneously or
successively, wrote one copy each to his dictation. These I suppose, were the
three copies which, we are informed, were sent to the capitals Damascus, Basra,
and Kufa ... "
3
Now, these two statements of Noldeke are clearly confusing and inconsistent.
If Zayd and his associates got hold of as many codices as possible and prepared
an edition out of them, then the second statement that Zayd read out from the
codex previously made and his colleagues simply made copies on his dictation is
incorrect and confusing. In fact, as already mentioned, they used the previously
made copy to prepare authorized copies for sending them to the different
provinces, making the spelling and vocalization uniform in order to eliminate the
differences in readings that had cropped up. It was neither a "second redaction"
nor "an edition" as Noldeke calls it. No alteration of, addition to or subtraction
from the existing text was made. The sources describe the details of how the
1
Supra, p. 200.
2
' Ibid.
work was done. Noldeke's statement that we have "no trustworthy information"
about it is not correct; and what he states under the proviso "It now seems to me
highly probable" is in fact only a contradiction of what he states earlier as the
preparation of an "edition" on the basis of as many codices as possible. Both his
contradictory statements are symptomatic of his attempts at confusing and
twisting the facts.
About the arrangement of the texts Noldeke observes that a subject-wise
classification was impracticable because of the variety of subjects dealt with in a
surah; while a "chronological arrangement was out of the question, because the
chronology of the older pieces must have been imperfectly known, and because
in some cases passages of different dates had been joined together ... The pieces
were accordingly arranged in indiscriminate order ... The combination of pieces of
different origin may proceed partly from the possessors of the codices from
which Zaid compiled his first complete copy, partly from Zaid himself."
1
This last statement of Noldeke is a further admission on his part that the
so-called "codices", i. e., the written copies with the Companions, were used for
making the "first complete copy" under Abu Bakr, not what is called the "second
redaction" or "an edition" under 'Uthman. Also, Noldeke's present statement
about the impracticability of arranging the Qur'anic passages in chronological
order highlights the indefinite and conjectural nature of his own chronological
arrangement of the surahs and passages of the Qur'an. Be that as it may, his
statement that Zayd or the possessors of the codices arranged the Qur'anic pieces
in indiscriminate order or combined the pieces of different origin as they thought
fit is completely wrong and contrary to a number of well-established facts. First,
not only most short surahs and surahs of medium length, but some of the long
surahs were revealed in full. Second, the Prophet had been giving out the Qur'anic
passages and surahs to his followers for a period of twenty-three years, teaching
them to recite and memorize them and repeatedly emphasizing that the surahs and
passages constituted a K.itab (Scripture). He and the believers had also been
regularly saying the daily and weekly congregational prayers reciting the surahs . It
is therefore absurd to suppose that he washed his hands off by simply giving out
the passages and did not indicate how to arrange them in surahs and in the Book.
Third, Zayd and those whom Noldeke calls "possessors of the codices" were
none else than the Prophet's scribes and Companions to whom he gave out the
I Ibid., PP 57-58.
passages. It can by no means be supposed that they had no other interest in the
matter except their employment as scribes and did not enquire of the Prophet
whether the pieces they were required to write were each independent surahs or
parts of surahs, and if the latter, which pieces belonged to which surahs and in
what order. In fact, there is a positive evidence that the Prophet, when he gave
out separate passages of the Qur'an, indicated the surahs and the order in which
they were to be placed.
1
Fourth, and more positively, we have a number of reports mentioning the
specific surahs which the Prophet used to recite in full in some of the prayers.
Thus, one report says that sometimes he used to recite surahs 50 (Qa.IJ and 54
(ai-Qamar) in the 1d prayers.
2
Another report says that he used to recite surahs 32
(ai-Sajdah) and 76 (ai-Insan) in the early dawn prayer and surahs 62 and 63
(ai-Jumu'ah and ai-Mundfiqun) in the congregational prayer on Friday.
3
Other
reports also mention the Prophet's recitation of surat ai-Baqarah (no. 2), surat 'AI
'Imran (no. 3), surat al-1sra' (no. 17), surat ai-Kahf (no. 18), surat Mryam (no.19), sural
Ta-Ha (no. 20) and sural ai-'Anbfya' (no. 21) completely and often consecutively in
different prayers.
4
Bint 'Abd a l - R a ~ m a n and Bint I::{arithah ibn al-Nu'man state
that they both memorized surah 50 (Qd.IJ simply by listening to it from the
Prophet who used to recite it in his sermon (khutbah) on Friday.
5
These facts
indisputably establish the fact that the passages had been arranged into surahs
during the time of the Prophet.
Fifth, there are a number of reports that the Prophet mentioned the special
merits of reciting some surahs. Thus, he specially recommended the frequent
,recitation of surat ai-Baqarah and 'AI 'Imran (nos. 2 and 3) saying that they would
be of immense merit for their reciters on the Day of Judgement.
6
Another group
of reports speak about the Prophet's having attached special merit for reciting
surat ai-Fatif;ah and the last three 'qyahs of sural ai-Baqarah.
7
The very fact that the
first surah of the Qur'an was called by the Prophet ai-Fatibah or Fatihal ai-K.itab
(the Opener or the Opening Chapter of the Book) proves that he had arranged
the order of the surahs in the Book. A yet another report speaks about the
Prophet's mentioning the merits of reciting surat ai-Kahf (no. 18).
8
1
Mu.rnad, I, pp. 57, 69. See also al-Suyilci, op. cit., pp. 174-180.
2
Muslim, no. 891.
' Ibid., nos. 879-880; Bukhdri, nos. 891, 1068.
4
See al-Suyil\1, Al-Itqdn, l, pp. 172-173.
' Mu.rlim, nos. 872-873.
6
Muslim, nos. 804-805.
7
Ibid., nos. 806-808.
Sixth, there are another group of reports which show that towards the end of
his life the Prophet used to recite the whole Qur'an dividing it into seven parts
and specified them as, apart from sural al-Fatif;ah, first three surahs, then five
surahs, then seven, then nine, then eleven, then thirteen and finally the rest from
sural al-Q4P It is to be observed that the first six parts with sural al-Fatil;ah make
up exactly the first 49 surahs and sural Qaf stands as the surah no. 50 in the
Qur'an. All these reports show that the passages and '4Jahs of the surahs had been
arranged and the order of the surahs had been fixed during the life-time of the
Prophet. This arrangement was made by him according to the direction received
from Allah. As already mentioned, the Prophet used to recite the whole Qur'an as
far as it was given to him before the angel Jibril during the month of Rama<;:lan
each year, and during the last Rama9-an of his life he did so twice.
3
Last but not least, it is also to be remembered that the collection and
distribution of the Qur'an in one compilation was made within some twenty years
of the Prophet's death and all the four of his closest Companions, Abu Bakr,
'Umar, 'Uthman and 'Ali (r.a.) were involved in the task. They had been
constantly with the Prophet since the beginning of his mission and had been the
first few persons to have knowledge of any Qur'anic revelation given out by the
Prophet. They also memorized most if not the whole of the Qur'anic texts. And
there are reports mentioning their recitation of long surahs in prayers. It is stated
by 'Urwah ibn al-Zubayr that he performed the dawn prayer behind 'Abu Bakr
and he recited the entire sural al-Baqarah in its two raka'ahs.
4
'AbdAllah ibn 'Amir
ibn Rabi'ah says that he performed the dawn prayer behind 'Umar ibn
and he recited sural Yusuf (no. 12) and sural al-flqjj (no. 22) in the two raka'ahs
respectively.
5
Al-Furafisah ibn 'Umayr al-.f:Ianafi states that he memorized sural
Yusuf simply by listening to its frequent recitation by 'Uthman ibn 'Affan in the
dawn prayer.
6
It was under the instruction and supervision of these four
Companions and successors of the Prophet that the compilation of the Qur'an
was made. Hence it is simply unreasonable to think that they allowed Zayd and
his colleagues to combine the Qur'anic passages into surahs and to set their order
in the Qur'an indiscriminately.
1
Ibid., no. 809.
2
See 'AbU Ddwud, nos. 1388-1393; Mu.rnad, IV, pp. 9, 343; Ibn MJjab, nos. 1345-1348; Tayd/isi, no. 1108.
' Bukfxirr; nos. 1902,4997, 4998. See also .rupra, p. 184.
Kitdb al-.faldb, Bdb a/Qird'ah.fi al--!abflh, no. 33.
5
Ibid., no. 34.
' Ibid., no. 35.
Thus the facts and reason both equally give a big lie to Noldeke's statement
that the Prophet did not care to arrange the passages into surahs, nor to provide
for their preservation nor to set their order in the Qur'an.
Another assumption of Noldeke's is about the disjointed letters at the
beginning of some surahs. "At one time I suggested", he says, "that these initials
did not belong to Muhammad's text, but might be the monograms of possessors
of codices, which, through negligence on the part of editors, were incorporated in
the final form of the Koran; but I now deem it more probable that they are to be
traced to the Prophet himself... Muhammad seems to have meant these letters
for a mystic reference to the archetypal text in heaven ... The Prophet himself can
hardly have attached any particular meaning to these symbols: they served their
purpose if they conveyed an impression of solemnity and enigmatical obscurity."
1
Now, this last remark is related essentially to the attitude of Noldeke and the
orientalists in general to the Qur'anic wa(!y which has been dealt with in a
previous section of the present work.
2
Here it may only be pointed out that had
the Prophet intended by these disjointed letters only to "convey an impression of
solemnity and enigmatical obscurity" to his utterances, he would have done so
with regard to all the surahs and passages he gave out, not simply with regard to
only 29 out of 114 surahs. The revised supposition of Noldeke is as unreasonable
as is his previous one.
Finally, Noldeke states that "'Uthman's Koran was not complete"
3
and says
that "a few detached pieces are still extant which were originally parts of the
Koran" and which the Prophet would not have suppressed but "they have been
omitted by Zaid." Having said this Noldeke adds: "Zaid may easily have
overlooked a few stray fragments, but that he purposely omitted anything which
he believed to belong to the Koran is very unlikely."
4
Next he refers to the copies
of texts (maJal;iJJ belonging to Ubay ibn Ka'b and 'AbdAllah ibn Mas'ud and says
that the former contained "substantially the same materials" and so "Ubai ibn
Ka'b must have used the original collection of Zaid"; but "it embodied two
additional short prayers, whose authenticity I do not now venture to question, as
I formerly did." And as regards the "codex" of Ibn Mas'ud it omits surahs 1, 113
and 114.
5
1
Ibn Warraq, op. cit., pp. 54-55.
2
Supra, chapters IV-VII.
3
' Ibid.
' Ibid., p. 59.
NO OELKE ON THE HISTORY OF THE QUR'AN 215
Now, in making the claim that Zayd had omitted some "detached pieces" of
the Qur'an Noldeke only relies on his supposition that "Zayd may easily have
overlooked a few stray. fragments". In fact Noldeke himself overlooks the fact
that the collection of the Qur'an by Zayd was not his private and solo effort. He
was commissioned by the state and, on the second occasion under 'Uthman, was
assisted by three other equally competent persons. And on both the occasions his
work was supervised by the principal Companions of the Prophet and it was
checked and compared not only with the extant written copies but also with what
the ~ u f f a ? _ (Qur'an memorizers) knew. It is therefore simply unreasonable to
suppose that "Zaid may easily have overlooked a few stray fragments." Noldeke's
initial statement that Zayd omitted some "detached pieces" which the Prophet
would not have suppressed is a totally baseless, unsubstantiated and an unjust
allegation. If by "some detached pieces" or "a few stray fragments" Noldeke
means "the two additional prayers" in Ubay ibn Ka'b's "codex", it is to be pointed
out that some of the Companions used to write explanatory notes and prayer
formulas (du'as) and keep them along with their copies of the Qur'anic texts.
Noldeke himself admits that he at first entertained doubts about the authenticity
about these two short prayers; but he does not give his reasons why he does not
"now venture to question" their authenticity. Be that as it may, Ubay ibn Ka'b
himself was alive and present at the time of the collection made by Zayd and
accepted and approved of it. So did Abd Allah ibn Mas'ud whose "codex", as
Noldeke notes, rather lacked three short surahs. It may also be pointed out that
some other Companions had also made their personal copies of the texts which
varied in contents and order of the surahs. For instance, Ali ibn Abi Talib had his
own copy which he had made in the chronological order. But all these persons
co-operated with, supervised and checked the collection made by Zayd and his
colleagues, approved of it and accepted it. And Noldeke himself, in spite of his
attempts at creating confusion and doubt, concludes: "Now, when we consider
that at that time there were many Muslims who had heard the Koran from the
mouth of the Prophet, that other measures of the imbecile 'Uthman met with the
most vehement resistance on the part of the bigoted champions of the faith, that
these were still further incited against him by some of his ambitious old
comrades, until at last they murdered him, and finally that in the civil wars after
his death the several parties were glad of any pretext for branding their opponents
as infidels, - when we consider all this, we must regard it as a strong testimony in
favour of 'Uthman's Koran, that no party- that of 'Ali not excepted- repudiated
the text formed by Zaid ... "
1
And we also - the readers - consider these lines the
strongest contradiction by Noldeke himself of what he dogmatically asserts earlier
of 'Uthman's Qur'an being incomplete and of Zayd's having omitted some stray
fragments of it.
Thus, all the main assumptions and theories of Noldeke about the history of
the Qur'an are conjectural and untenable. His chronological order of the passages
and surahs are conjectural by his own admission and are not accepted by even the
other orientalists who attempt at making similarly conjectural and varying
chronological arrangements. His earlier and later assumptions about the
disjointed letters at the beginning of some surahs are wildly speculative and do not
stand reason. His statement that the Prophet did not care to provide for the
preservation of the Qur'anic texts and was merely concerned with the need of the
moment is against reason and all the undeniable facts to the contrary. His
assumption that Zayd ibn Thibit or the "possessors of the codices" combined the
separately revealed passages of the Qur'an into surahs and arranged the later in
their present order is equally baseless and untenable. And his statement that Zayd
omitted some disjointed or stray passages of the Qur'an and that therefore the
'Uthmanic Qur'an is incomplete is completely wrong.
Noldeke makes other remarks and assumptions about the Qur'an. Thus,
reflecting Muir's view about the Qur'anic wa!!J he says that the Prophet gave out
the revelations after "epileptic fits" and "it is impossible to say whether the trick
was in the utterance of the revelation or in the fit itself."
2
"But by far", he further
says, "the greatest part of the book is undoubtedly the result of deliberation ...
Many of the passages are based upon purely intellectual reflection. "
3
Again,
reflecting the Muir-Sprenger views, Noldeke states that the Qur'an is composed
of materials derived from Judaeo-Christian sources and is otherwise a
heterogeneous collection consisting of disjointed facts and ideas.
4
About its
literary style also he closely toes the line adopted by Muir and Sprenger and says
that the "greater part of the Koran is decidedly prosaic; much of it is indeed stiff
in style."
5
Also, following Sprenger, Noldeke states that the Prophet used a
number of foreign words in the Qur'an, as is "the tendency of the imperfectly
1
Ibn Warraq, op. tit., p. 59.
' Ibid., p. 39.
' Ibid.
4
Ibid., pp. 43, 54.
' Ibid, p. 44.
educated to delight in out-of-the-way expressions", and in order to impress his
listeners.
1
Further, Noldeke says that the Prophet used to "introduce
improvements" upon what he had previously given out.
2
And speaking about the
effect of the Qur'an on the Arabs in general Noldeke observes that "they had
outgrown their ancient religion".
3
And just as Noldeke himself had adopted and exaggerated some of the ideas
and assumptions of his predecessors, similarly his successor orientalists like David
Margoliouth, Arthur Jeffery, Richard Bell and Montgomery Watt took over from
him and inflated his ideas and assumptions out of all proportions. The
assumptions about the Qur'anic wa/.!J and the theme of borrowing from
Judaeo-Christian sources have already been dealt with. The remarks about the
text and style of the Qur'an shall be discussed in a subsequent chapter. Here it is
necessary to note that Noldeke's hint about the copies of Qur'anic texts (mafdbi!J
belonging to some Companions and the alleged incompleteness of the 'Uthmanic
Qur'an, the alleged revision of it by the Prophet, the existence of "foreign words"
in it and such other remarks have been taken up by his successors and inflated to
further unreasonable proportions. The following chapter takes into consideration
such inflation ofNoldeke's assumptions and suggestions.
I Ibid., pp. 47-48.
2
Ibid.
' Ibid., p. 53.
CHAPTER IX
II. INFLATION OF NOLDEKE'S ASSUMPTIONS
I. ARTIIURJEFFERY's MAIERIALS ETC.
Of those who have taken over Noldeke's assumptions and have built further
assumptions upon them mention may specially be made of Arthur Jeffery whose
Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur'an The Old Codices appeared in 1937.
1
This work is based on the wrong assumption of Noldeke that the 'Uthmanic
Qur'an is "incomplete" because there exist a number of other "codices", i. e.,
copies of the Qur'anic text, with variant materials and readings. Jeffery himself
very clearly indicates his indebtedness to Noldeke in the Introduction to the
work. Thus after stating somewhat incorrecdy that critical investigation of the
text of the Qur'an is still in its infancy and that no "definite attempt" has hitherto
been made "to construct any type of critical text of the Qur'an" he states:
"N oldeke opened it up in 1860 in the first edition of his Geschischte des Qorans, and
Goldziher drew attention to its importance in the first lecture of his Richtungen,
2
but it received no systematic treatment until Bergstrasser undertook his Geschischte
des Qorantexts as the third part of the revised edition of Noldeke's work. .. "
3
In fact
both Bergstrasser and Jeffery planned a joint venture in this respect. In a footnote
to the above statement Jeffery writes: " Bergstrasser envisaged a much larger plan
for a history of the text of the Qur'an based on an assemblage of materials on a
vast scale, and of which the publication of a critical text of the Qur'an by the
present writer [i. e., Jeffery] was to form part."
4
The plan did not materialize
because of the death of Bergstrasser in 1933; but the project was continued by
Jeffery in his own way of which the result is his Materials etc. under discussion.
Jeffery sufficiendy reflects his motive and conclusion in the tide of the work
which in its full runs as: Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur'an - The Old
Codices - The Kitab of Ibn Abt Daud together with a Collection of the variant
Readings from the Codices of Ibn Mas'ud, Ubai, Ibn 'Abbas, Anas, Abu Musa and
other Ear!J Qur'anic authorities which represent a Tjpe of Text Anterior to that of the
canonical Text of Vthman. Now this tide, to begin with, is misleading in two main
respects. First, it tends to give the impression that the "variant readings" noted in
1
Printed for the Trustees of the "De Goeje Fund" by E. J. Brill, Leiden, 1937.
2
Die Richtungen der islamirchen Koranuslegung, Leiden, 1920.
3
A. Jeffery, Materials etc., pp. 3-4.
4
Ibid., n. 6.
JEFFERY-BELL-WAIT-BURTON ASSUMPTIONS 219
the book are taken from the "codices" of the persons named, while the fact is that
the "variant readings" recorded are not directly from the "codices" as such but
from what is noted and reported by others, the exegetes and lexicographers, as
having come down from the codices mentioned. Second, the concluding part of
the title, namely, that the variant readings noted "represent a type of text anterior
to that of the canonical text of 'Uthman" is grossly misleading. It is to be noted
that the persons of whose codices are mentioned by Jeffery were all Companions
of the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be on him, and were contemporaries
of one another and of Zayd ibn Thabit who himself had one copy of the text of
the Qur'an and who was one of those in charge of making what is called the
"canonical text of 'Uthman". 'Uthman himself was a senior contemporary of all
these persons and they were all alive at the time of making the compilation under
him. The "codices" of the persons mentioned were and could only be
"contemporary" with the "codices" of Zayd and others of the Prophet's
Companions. They were copies of the same text as given out by the Prophet and
by no means "anterior" or posterior to one another. Jeffery's title gives the false
impression as if the codices mentioned were "older" copies and the copy made
under 'Uthman was something of a "later" work. This is by no means the case.
The different codices or copies were made simultaneously by the Prophet's
Companions and were in no way different texts of the Qur'an, though they
differed in respect of completeness.
As regards Jeffery's work itself, it falls into two distinct parts. The first part
consists of an Introduction and listings of the "variant readings" of some Qur'anic
expressions as gleaned from a number of exegesis and Arabic lexicographical
works, arranged under the names of the "codices" from which these readings are
reported to have been quoted. In the Introduction Jeffery mentions some 15
"primary codices" including those of 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (d. 29 H.), 'Ali ibn Abi
Talib (d. 40 H.), Ubay ibn Ka'b (d. 29 H.), 'Abd Allah ibn Mas'ud (d. 3.3 H.),
t J : a f ~ a h (d. 45 H.), Zayd ibn Thabit (d. 48), 'kishah (d. 58) and 'AbdAllah ibn
al-Zubayr (d. 73) [may Allah be pleased with them]. Mention is also made of
some "secondary codices" based on the "primary codices."
1
The second part of the work consists of Abu Bakr ibn Daud's (d. 316 H.) Kitab
af-MaJahif, edited by Jeffery using a manuscript of it preserved in the Zahiriya
Library at Damascus. This latter work gives an account of the compilation of the
I Ibid., P 14.
220 11-IE QUR'AN AND 11-IE ORIENTALISTS
Qur'an under 'Uthman ibn 'Affan (r. a.) together with a description of some of
the old codices (ma!iil;iJJ. Jeffery deserves thanks for thus making available to the
public this valuable work on Qur'anic studies. It must not be supposed, however,
that the work was unknown before this edition by Jeffery. Many classical and
medieval Muslim scholars used and referred to this work of Ibn Abi Daud. For
instance Ibn I:Iajar al-Asqalaru (d. 852 H.) uses and refers to this work in his
famous commentary on Bukhiiri (Fatb ai-Ban}, specially in his explanation of the
reports relating to the collection of the Qur'an (biib jam' ai-Qur'iin).
1
This second
part of Jeffery's work thus does not call for discussion and analysis. Nor do the
variant readings noted by the exegetes and lexicographers call for any special
remarks; for Muslims recognise and accept some variation in vocalisation and
recitation due principally to the absence of dots (nuqat) and vowel signs (!Jarakaf)
in the early Arabic script, as noted earlier.
What is specially remarkable, however, is Jeffery's motive in tabulating the
variant readings from the works of the Muslims themselves. His declared
objective is to show that the 'Uthmanic text is only one of the many "rival" and
"widely divergent" texts and that therefore the present Qur'an is neither
"complete" nor, by implication, quite authentic. He also aims at preparing what he
calls a "critical text" of the Qur'an. Leaving aside this latter aim of his, which he
did not or could not accomplish, the assumptions that he makes to prove his
thesis are all wrong and misconceived, as we shall presendy see.
His first assumption, or rather arbitrary assertion, is that the account found in
the Muslim sources about the compilation of the Qur'anic text -the "orthodox
Muslim theory of the text" as he calls itis "largely fictitious". He does not give
any reason for calling the Muslim account "fictitious"; but it is easy to see why he
does so. His theory that the copies (codices) made by the Companions were
different and divergent texts and that 'Uthman adopted only one of the many
"rival texts" cannot be sustained unless doubts could be created about the Muslim
account. In the event, while casting doubt on the Muslim account, he takes up
facts and bits of information from that account and, by twisting and distorting
them, advances a series of misleading suggestions.
Thus, first, Jeffery states that when the Prophet died "there was no Qur'an left
ready as a heritage for the community."
2
This is a grossly wrong and misleading
statement. The Prophet, as is well known, gave out to the public and his followers
1
Ibn ljajar, F a t ~ ai-Bdri, ed. 'Abd al-'Aziz ibn Baz, vol. IX, pp.17-21.
2
Ibid., pp. 5-6.
each and every passage of the revelations as he received these. He continued to
do so throughout the twenty-three years of his mission. These were also written
down under his direction and at his dictation by a number of selected
Companions, the "scribes". A great many of the Companions also learnt by heart
the surahs as they were given out by him. 'AbdAllah ibn Mas'ud, of whose written
copy of the Qur'an text (codex) Jeffery specially mentions, states that he
memorized more than 70 surahs ..:r-":-' J the Qur'an simply by hearing
them from the lips of the Prophet.
1
It is to be noted that the thirtieth juz' of the
Qur'an consisting of the short surahs contain only 41 surahs. So almost an equal
number of long surahs must have been included in the more than seventy surahs
memorized by 'Abd Allah ibn Mas'ud. That the long surahs memorized by him
included surat ai-Nisa' ( no. 4) is proved by his other statement that he once
recited this particular surah unto the Prophet.
2
The Qur'an was thus already in the
possession of the community before the Prophet's death. The Companions of the
Prophet not simply wrote down and memorized the Qur'an; they lived and
conducted themselves by its teachings. The Prophet had not only delivered to
them the Qur'an but also trained them as living examples of the teachings of the
Qur'an.
Jeffery's emphasis is obviously on what he describes as "collected, arranged,
collated body of revelations"; but even that innuendo is not correct. The Prophet,
as noted earlier, had arranged the "revelations" into surahs and had also set the
order of the surahs. Jeffery cites in this connection the researches of Bell and
Torrey and suggests that the Prophet had kept in his own care a
mass of revelation, "some of it in revised and some of it in unrevised form",
intending it to be given out to his community as a kitab which he could not
accomplish due to his sudden death. We shall presently deal with Bell's untenable
theory of revision of the Qur'an by the Prophet. He did indeed have in his care a
considerable mass of the revelations written down on different materials; but he
did never revise any text of the Qur'an nor did he ever withhold any single
passage of it with a view to revising it. Nor is there any single instance of a
Qur'anic passage having been reissued in an altered and revised form. The whole
innuendo is based on a fundamental misconception that the Prophet himself
wrote the texts of the Qur'an and continued to revise and correct them before
giving them out as a book to his community. Further, Jeffery attempts to confuse
1
Bukhdrf, no. 5000; Mu.rlim, n. 2462; Mu.rnad, I, pp. 389, 405, 414, 442.
2
Bukhdn; no. 5055; Mu.r/im, no. 800.
the reader by suggesting that the fate of the materials that remained with the
Prophet is uncertain - "we are at a loss to know what became of this material,
which obviously would have been the community's most precious legacy."
1
The
absurdity of this remark is highlighted by Jeffery's virtual contradiction of it on
the very next page of his text where he says that 'Abu Bakr "may possibly have
inherited material that the prophet had stored away in preparation of the Kitab."
2
Jeffery cannot deny the fact of the revelations having been preserved in
writing as well as through memorization. Hence he attempts to belittle these facts
or to create confusion about these. Thus Jeffery says: "The Prophet had
proclaimed his messages orally, and, except in the latter period of his ministry,
whether they were recorded or not was often a matter of chance."
3
Now, this
statement of Jeffery's is wrong and misleading. It is not only in the latter period,
i.e., at Madina, that the revelations were written down. The process had started at
Makka, as acknowledged even by Noldeke, and it was then not simply a "matter
of chance". It is unreasonable to think that the Prophet, having taken steps to
have the revelations written down, would have then left it to a "matter of
chance". With regard to the scribes employed by the Prophet to write down the
revelations Jeffery says that "these amanuenses" could have been "at times called
upon to write out special pieces of revelation" but they cannot be taken to be "a
body of prepared scribes waiting to take down revelations as they were uttered."
4
It is not clear what Jeffery means by the expression "a body of prepared scribes".
The scribes did not of course wait to take down revelations as they were uttered;
but they were called upon at appropriate times to write down the revelations as
the Prophet dictated these to them. Jeffery's suggestion that they were called
upon only to write down "special pieces of revelations" is totally unwarranted.
There is no evidence to suggest that the Prophet took care only to have the
so-called special pieces of revelation written down. As for these so-called special
pieces of revelation Jeffery says: "Some pieces of revelation material seem to have
been used liturgically and so probably would have been written."
5
This statement
of Jeffery's in fact betrays his lack of understanding of the nature of the Muslim
prayer and the use in it of the Qur'an. It is not "some pieces" of the Qur'an but
any and every part of it can be and is used for the Muslim prayer. Also, such use
1
Jeffery, op. dt., p. 5.
2
Ibid., p. 6.
' Ibid.
4
Ibid., n. 1.
' Ibid., p. 6.
of the Qur'an in prayer is made not in the form of reading out from a written
piece, as is done in the Christian liturgy, but from memory, either silently or
audibly. Similarly misconceived and unwarranted is Jeffery's statement that "some
pieces" the Prophet "himself caused to be written down in permanent form as
they were of a definite legislative character."
1
Once again it needs to be pointed
out that there is no evidence in the sources to suggest that the Prophet caused to
be written down only the pieces of revelation that were of a "definite legislative
character". The fact is that Jeffery, while admitting the fact of the revelations
having been written down, attempts at the same time to belittle or to create
confusion about it.
The same thing he does with regard to the fact of memorization ?f the
Qur'anic texts. Thus he states: "Certain individuals among the early Muslims,
perhaps even a little before the Prophet's death, had specialized in collecting or
memorizing this revelation material." They came to be known as the Qurra' and
were "as it were the depository of revelation."
2
The process of memorization as
well as writing down of the revelations had started right from the beginning of
the Prophet's mission, not "a little before" his death. In fact, it speaks of the great
wisdom and prudence of the Prophet that he took simultaneous steps to have the
revelations memorized as well as written down. These were thus preserved both
in writing as well as through memorization by the Companions, many of whom
had, before his death, learnt the whole Qur'an by heart, while many others had
memorized a good deal of it. This dual process of preservation had the additional
advantage of checking the one with the other. The Prophet specially emphasized
the practice of memorization and attached great merit to it. That the revelations
were not collected into one compilation before his death was because these
continued to come down till the last day of the Prophet's life. Yet, he had
arranged the separately revealed pieces into surahs and had also set the order of
the surahs of the Qur'an. By the very nature of things the collection of the surahs
into one compilation had to be done after his death; and that is exactly what was
done by his immediate successor, 'Abu Bakr. And in doing so, he did not miss the
implication of the Prophet's practice of having the Qur'anic texts both written
down and committed to memory. Hence in making the compilation he required
the written text to be compared with the memorized text, and vice versa, and
nothing was included in the compilation that did not meet this strict criterion.
I Ibid.
' Ibid.
Also, even when the written compilation was completed, the process of
memorization was not discouraged or discontinued, so that even today Muslims
can count in their ranks millions of buffa:r (Retainers of the full Qur'an in
memory).
This fact of 'Abu Bakr's having had the compilation of the Qur'an made on a
meticulous comparison of the written copies of the text with the memorized text
militates against Jeffery's main theory that the 'Uthmanic copy was one of many
different and divergent "codexes". Hence he attempts to create doubts about the
compilation made by Abu Bakr. Jeffery writes: "That Abu Bakr was one of those
who collected revelation material was doubtless true". He "possibly inherited
material that the Prophet had stored away in preparation for the kitdb"; but that
he "ever made an official recension as the orthodox theory demands is
exceedingly doubtful. His collection would have been a purely private affair, just
as quite a number of other Companions of the Prophet had made personal
collections as private affairs."
1
Now, it is not the so-called "orthodox theory" but a number of authentic
reports that speak about the compilation made by 'Abu Bakr. Jeffery does not
give any reason for questioning the authenticity of these particular reports and
arbitrarily describes the account as "exceedingly" doubtful. But leaving aside the
reports, what Jeffery suggests is contrary to reason and the nature of things. 'Abu
Bakr was not at the time merely one among a number of other Companions of
the Prophet. He was the immediate successor (khalfjah) of the Prophet and was in
charge of the guidance of the Muslims and the administration of the state, for
both of which the Qur'an was in constant use. Jeffery acknowledges that 'Abu
Bakr himself was one of those who had collected "the revelation material" and
had also "possibly" inherited the material "that the Prophet had stored away in
preparation for the kitdb." It is also reasonable to assume that he was aware of the
collections made by the other Companions like 'Ali, Salim, 'Abu Musa al-'Ash'ari,
'AbdAllah ibn Mas'ud and Ubay ibn Ka'b, all of whom were present in Madina
and were in close association with him in conducting the affairs of the Muslims
and in administering the state. As successor of the Prophet it was only natural on
the part of 'Abu Bakr that he should have taken steps to make a compilation of
the kitdb for which the materials had been left by the Prophet. It is also natural
that in doing so he would have taken into account not only his own collection
I Ibid., pp. 6-7.
and the material inherited from the Prophet, but also the collections made by the
other Companions, who were by no means individuals isolated from one another,
as Jeffery would seem to suggest_
Secondly, in the immediately preceding paragraph of his text Jeffery mentions
that it was the "slaughter of a great number" of qum2' (Qur'an readers) at the
Battle of Yamama in 12 H. that "caused interest to be aroused in getting all the
revelation material set down in permanent written form".
1
He does not, however,
follow or mention the sequence. The Battle of Yamama in 12 H. was an
important event during 'Abu Bakr's khildfah and it was indeed the death of a
number of Qur'an memorizers in that battle which turned his and his colleagues'
attention to the question of having the Qur'an written down in one compilation.
In fact the report about this compilation work under 'Abu Bakr mentions the
death of a number of Qur'an readers at the Battle of Yamama as the immediate
occasion for this work. Jeffery's double standard permits him to accept only one
part of the report and to arbitrarily doubt or sidetrack the other part of the same
report. Had he been consistent and reasonable enough in his thinking he would
have asked himself the question: What happened after interest had been aroused
in the matter in consequence of the slaughter of many Qur'an readers .at the
Battle of Y amama? Had he done so, he would have found the answer in the
report and would not have tried to mislead his readers by saying that 'Abu Bakr's
making of"an official recension" is "exceedingly doubtful."
In fact, what the report says is just a natural follow-on to the interest aroused
by the killing of a number of Qur'an readers at Yamama. As already mentioned,
'Abu Bakr, in consultation with 'Umar and other senior Companions, appointed
Zayd ibn Thabit to gather the Qur'anic texts in one written compilation,
instructing him to compare every memorized text with the written one and vice
versa. He also made a public announcement asking everyone who had with him
any Qur'anic text, written or memorized, to submit it to either Zayd or 'Umar
who were asked to remain in attendance for the purpose at the Prophet's
Mosque.
2
The selection of Zayd was made on the consideration that he had been
the scribe who remained with the Prophet till the last moment of his life and was
also present at the last two recitations of the complete Qur'an by the Prophet
during the last year of his life. In describing his work Zayd himself states: " ... so I
tracked the collection of the Qur'an from palm-leaves and bones and hearts of
I Ibid., P 6.
2
See .rupra, pp. 200-201.
men, till I found the last part of surat al-tawbah with Abu Khuzaymah al-Ansari. I
did not find it with anyone else."
1
He further says: "When we wrote down the
Qur'an we did not find one 'qyah of [surat] ai-'Af;zdb which I used to hear the
Messenger of Allah recite; so we made a search for it and found it with
Khuzaymah ibn Thabit al-Ansari ... "
2
Three things become clear from the above. First, the collection and
compilation was made on a comparison of the written texts with the memorized
texts. This is very clear from both the above quoted statements of Zayd's,
particularly his second statement in which he says that although he remembered
the particular 'qyah of surat a/- 'Abzdb and heard the Messenger of Allah reciting it,
he did not include it in the compilation until he found its written copy with
Khuzaymah ibn Thabit. Second, it is also clear that every effort was made to track
down whatever anyone had in his possession of either a written or a memorized
text. And as all the four principal Companions, 'Abu Bakr, 'Umar, 'Uthman and
'Ali, together with other Companions like 'AbdAllah ibn Mas'ud, Salim, Ubay
ibn Ka'b, 'A'ishah, 'Abu Musa al-'Ash'ari and others were all present at Madina
and in close touch with the khalfjah 'Abu Bakr in all his work, it is obvious that
the written copies that they had with them were duly compared and taken into
consideration. Third, the statement that the written copy of the "last part" of surat
al-tawbah was found only with 'Abu Khuzaymah and no one else makes it clear
that the order of the various passages of any particular surah had already been
fixed by the Prophet.
Thus a collection of the Qur'anic texts in one written compilation was made
during 'Abu Bakr's khil!ifah. This fact is implicit even in Jeffery's own theory that
'Uthman canonized "the Madinan Codex".
3
The latter can only mean the master
copy prepared under the direction of 'Abu Bakr. Strangely and inconsistently
enough, in a footnote to this statement Jeffery attempts to deny the existence of
any codex at Madina by saying: "Assuming that there was a Madinan Codex. The
stories of 'Uthman's Committee ... suggest that Madina had depended largely on
oral tradition and that this Committee of 'Uthman made a first hand collection by
taking down the material directly from the depositories and demanding two
witnesses for every revelation accepted. "
4
If Madina had no "codex" till 'U thman' s
1
Bukhdri, no. 4986.The text runs as: r-l.;;L,;'Jii..,)" _.,! c: <,_,::11 i;y .f"l.:..;..J JL..)i ;J"'-") -:.WJ1J -,.-.]1 ;r .....,.! 01_,.ill
.,. ..c..!c: I.Akl
2
Bukhdri, no. 4988 . .;;L,;'Ji J. i..,?t: LAL:.-...:illt., !,.<. .J.J1 J,...; e-1 .:-5 .u ylr-'J' ;r <,1 .:...Lii
' Jeffery, op. cit., p. 8.
JEFFERY-BELL-WATT-BURTON ASSUMPTIONS 227
time, then the statement that 'U thman canonized only the Madinan Codex is
palpably wrong. Again, if 'Uthman's Committee made a first hand collection by
taking the material from the depositories, then it is completely illogical to suggest,
as Jeffery does, that 'Uthman did not take into consideration the "codexes" the
different Companions had with them and of the existence of which he could not
have been unaware. It is also totally unreasonable to think that while, according
to Jeffery, the different provincial metropolitan centres had each one particular
codex which it followed, Madina, the centre of the Islamic body politic, depended
largely on oral tradition. Jeffery simply misunderstands or misinterprets the fact
of the Prophet's having preserved the Qur'anic texts in both writing and through
memorization, and mixes up the information contained in the report about the
collection made by 'Abu Bakr with the work of the committee appointed by
'Uthman and thus attempts to create doubts about the history of the Qur'an texts.
Thus, coming to the work done under 'Uthman, Jeffery attempts to explain
the existence of a number of "codexes" by saying: "What we find in early Islam, as
a matter of fact, is only what we might have expected to find. Different members
of the community who were interested began to collect in written form so much
as they could gather of the revelation material that had been proclaimed by the
Prophet."
2
This statement ignores or sidetracks the fact that the different
Companions made their copies of the Qur'an texts during the life-time of the
Prophet and at his dictation or listening to his recitation. The way Jeffery states
the case seems to suggest that the different members of the community began to
collect the revelation material only after the Prophet was no more. This was not
the fact. It may also be asked: If different members of the community who were
interested began to collect in written form so much as they could of the
revelation material, was it not all the more natural that 'Abu Bakr, the Prophet's
closest Companion and immediate successor, would have made a collection of all
that he could of the revelation material? That is exactly what he did and that is
exactly what Jeffery attempts against all evidence and reason to deny.
After having stated in the above mentioned way the reason for the individual
collections of the Qur'an texts Jeffery states that some of these collections later
acquired "notoriety" in different provincial centres. Thus "the people of Horns
and Damascus followed the Codex of Miqdad b. al-Aswad, the Kufans that of
Ibn Mas'ud, the Basrans that of Abu Musa al-Ash'ari, and the Syrians in general
1
Ibid., n. 1.
' Ibid., p. 7.
that of Ubai' ibn Kab."
1
There "were wide divergences between the collections",
further says Jeffery, and that 'Uthman's solution was "no mere matter of
removing dialectical peculiarities" but establishing a "standard text for the whole
empire" by canonizing the Madinan Codex and suppressing all others. "There can
be little doubt that the text canonized by 'U thman was only one among several
types of text in existence at the time."
2
It needs to be pointed out that the persons mentioned did not find their way
to the different provincial centres on their own accord but were appointed as
administrators at those places by the khalfjas 'Umar and 'Uthman, with
instructions to teach the people the Qur'an. The copies of the Qur'an texts with
them were not divergent and "different types of text", as Jeffery asserts. These
contained the same texts of the Qur'an, differing only in respect of completeness
and, as later reports suggest, in the order of the surahs. The persons mentioned
were all well-known Qur'an readers (teachers) and both 'Umar and 'Uthman, of
all persons, were well aware of the existence of copies of Qur'an texts with them.
Had these copies contained divergent and different types of text they would
never have been appointed to their respective places for administration and
teaching of the Qur'an. That copies of the master copy prepared by 'Abu Bakr
had not been sent out to the provinces was due obviously to the fact that while
'Abu Bakr's khildjah was occupied by the process of pacification of the Arabian
peninsula, the periods of 'Umar and 'Uthman were occupied by the processes of
expansion and satbilization. Further, the Qur'an "readers" were also memorizers
of the Qur'an texts and it was understood that they would mainly teach the
Qur'an orally through recitation. It is well to remember that the whole
development took place in a rather surprisingly short period of time. The
collection of the whole Qur'an in one written compilation was made by 'Abu
Bakr within a couple of years after the Prophet's death; while copies of this
master copy were sent out to the provinces by 'Uthman within the next eighteen
years, i. e., by 30 H. He took this step on receipt of the very first report about
variant recitations in the provinces. The differences were dialectical and in the
manners of vocalization; and this is what the reporter, Hudhayfah ibn al-Y aman,
who was sent on a campaign to Adharbyjan and noticed the variations on his
return march, stressed in his report to the khalfjah.
3
I Ibid., p. 7.
2
Ibid., p. 8.
' Ibn al-Athir, AI-Kdmiljl ai-Tarfkh, Beirut, 1987, vol. III, p. 8.
All the sources unanimously state that 'Uthman, on receipt of J:iudhayfah's
report, immediately consulted his principal colleagues, borrowed the master copy
of the Qur'an prepared by 'Abu Bakr and then in the custody of Umm
al-Mu'minin had copies of it made by a committee and sent these copies
to the different provinces, with instructions to destroy and put into disuse the
extant incomplete and uncorroborated copies.
1
This prompt measure was
adopted to preserve the integrity of the Qur'anic text and to prevent any
divergent and extraneous elements being introduced into it. That is why all the
surviving Companions of the Prophet, including those who had in their
possession their personal "codexes" supported and welcomed 'Uthman's action.
2
It is to be noted that the committee appointed by 'Uthman to make copies out of
the master copy and to streamline the dialectical aberrations was headed by the
same Zayd ibn Thabit who had made the master copy under 'Abu Bakr and who
was now the Chief Justice of Madina. Of the three other members of the
committee 'Abd Allah ibn Zubayr himself possessed his personal codex. Similarly
the holders of other codexes like Miqdad ibn al-'Aswad, 'Abu Musa al-'Ash'ari,
and Ubay ibn Ka'b welcomed and accepted 'Uthman's measure. Even at Kufa,
where 'Abd Allah ibn Mas'ud used to teach the Qur'an, the other Companions of
the Prophet welcomed it. It is only 'Abd Allah and some of his followers who
initially disliked it, but this immediate and temporary reaction of theirs soon
passed away and they also accepted the 'Uthmanic copy. Jeffery mentions this
temporary opposition in such a way as to give the impression that it was
permanent and persistent. His statement that "the Qurra' were violently opposed
to 'Uthman because of this act"
3
is grossly wrong and is not borne out by the
sources. While citing Ibn al-Athir's work in support of his statement about 'Abd
Allah ibn Mas'ud's disagreement Jeffery withholds form his readers the important
fact mentioned by Ibn al-Athir in the same place that while 'AbdAllah's followers
gathered round him and voiced their objection he shouted out to them saying:
"Be quiet. This has been done under our eyes. And if I were to take over from
him what 'Uthman has taken charge of, I would surely have followed his way
dLJ .)\...!&. JJ Lo-..:,.. 4J _,lj J..t \.:... ..::..S:,..i JL.; J cl..,aj)".
4
Jeffery also cites
1
Ibid; also Bukhdri, no. 4987.
2
Ibn al-Athlr, op.dt., p. 9.
' Jeffery, op. tit., p. 8. In support of this particular statement Jeffery inappropriately mentions in his footnote the Ibadites'
allegation that 'Uthman had tampered with God's word. It may pointed out that neither were the 'Ibadites the .Qurrd'
under reference nor can their unjust allegation be construed as "violent opposition".
4
Ibn al-Athlr, op.dt., p. 9.
in support of his statement;
1
but in fact mentions 'Abd Allah
ibn Mas'ud's attitude as his immediate reaction and points out that soon he
revised his opinion and accepted the opinion of the other Companions of the
Prophet in respect of the wisdom of 'Uthmans act.
2
Al-Dhahabi also mentions
the same thing about 'Abd Allah ibn Mas'ud and states: "It has been reported
that Ibn Mas'ud agreed and followed 'Uthman( ... J ...,?J :..J"--' ._:r.l .:>i :.J) ..u J).
3
In fact 'Abd Allah soon afterwards returned to Madina, lived in close association
with 'Uthman. and died there in 32/33 H. and was buried in the Baqi' graveyard.
4
Thus the 'Uthmanic copy, which was in fact the complete authentic copy of
the Qur'an made during 'Abu Bakr's time by taking into consideration all
memorized and written texts including those possessed by individual
Companions, was accepted by all the surviving Companions of the Prophet. It is
obvious, however, that in spite of 'Uthman's directive to destroy the incomplete
and inauthentic codexes, some of these, including that of Ibn Mas'ud, were not
destroyed. Jeffery gathers from Ibn 'Abi Daud's Kitab ai-Maral;ij and several
Qur'an commentaries the names of 13 "Secondary Codices" of which 7 "are
based on the Codex of Ibn Mas'ud".
5
Be that as it may, the variant readings that
he has tabulated from the Qur'an commentaries and Arabic Lexicographical
works and are reported to be derived from the various codices do not, however,
prove his thesis that these codices were "divergent", "several" or "rival types of
text." All that appears from the list of variants is that they relate to a very small
number 'qyahs in the Qur'an and are then mostly synonyms or explanatory
expressions on the words in the 'U thmanic text.
The most important question is, however, the authenticity of the reports that
ascribe the readings to the various old codices. On this question Jeffery writes:
"In some cases it must be confessed there is a suspicion of readings later invented
by the grammarians and theologians being fathered on these early authorities in
order to gain the prestige of their name. This suspicion is perhaps strongest in the
case of distinctively Shl'a readings that are attributed to Ibn Mas'ud, and in
readings attributed to the wives of the Prophet ... On the whole, however, one
may feel confident that the majority of readings quoted from any Reader really go
1
Jeffery, op. tit., p. 8, n. 3.
2
QurFUb1, Tafrir, X, 7171 (cited in Al-Dhahab1, Siyar 'A 'liim ai-Nubld', ed. Shu'ayb al-Ama'ut and I;Iusayn al-Asad, Vol. I,
p. 485, n. 2.
' Al-Dhahab1, op.dt., p. 488.
4
Ibid., pp. 498-499.
' Jeffery, op. dt., p. 14.
back to early authority_" Thus does Jeffery, while recognizing the problem, merely
avoids it and disposes of it by saying that "one may feel confident" that the
majority of the readings quoted go back to early authority. None can feel so
"confident" about it unless he is prejudiced. In any case, serious scholarship
demands that each and every report attributing a certain variant reading to a
particular authority should be thoroughly looked into and its authenticity or
otherwise be ascertained before hazarding a drastic conclusion on the basis of
that reading. The fact remains that Jeffery has not done anything of that sort. And
in view of the fact that the popular Qur'an commentaries contain many
uncorroborated and inauthentic reports and that many interested groups had
readily had recourse to fabrication of reports, the majority of the variant readings
listed by Jeffery are suspect and are unworthy of credence.
There are other points related to the question of authenticity of the variant
readings; and it would suffice to mention only the points that Jeffery has noted.
(a) Occasionally "a reading that is commonly known as coming from a certain
early Reader" is "attributed to quite another source."
1
(b) There are cases "where
a variant is quoted by only one source which is otherwise known for the
carelessness of its citation of authorities."
2
(c) Not "infrequently" there are
"various forms of the variant attributed to the same Reader in different sources."
3
(d) "Some of the variants in the form in which they have survived to us seem
linguistically impossible ... "
4
(e) In "some cases the uncanonical variants from
these Old Codices may be interpreted as improvements on the 'Uthmanic text, ...
In such cases the 'Uthmanic text would seem to be the more primitive text which
the other types assume as their basis. "
5
(f) There are a number of cases "where the
variant in the Old Codices was merely a synonym for the word in the text ... "
6
Even with regard to the very slight differences in the lists of surahs in the different
codices as are mentioned in later works Jeffery admits: "It is evident that we
cannot place any reliance on the lists, which is as in the case of Ibn Mas'ud's
Codex, must be regarded as later formations not based on the original Codex."'
Thus the facts mentioned by Jeffery himself go to show the weakness and
untenability of his theory of the "Old Codices" being divergent and "rival types of
I Ibid., P 15.
2
Ibid.
' Ibid., p. 16.
4
Ibid.
I Ibid.
'' Ibid.
7
Ibid., p. 115.
texts." All that is proved is some dialectical peculiarities and differences in
vocalization due primarily to the absence of vowel signs and points on or under
some letters in the early form of the Arabic alphabet, together with the use of
synonyms for a number of words in the 'Uthmanic text. The variant readings
from the Old Codices, even if the reports regarding these readings be considered
reliable, do not make out a case for rival and divergent texts.
1
Neither did
'Uthman "canonize" only one of many existing texts, nor did the written copies of
Qur'anic texts possessed by individual Companions of the Prophet- the so-called
"Old Codices" - constitute divergent and rival texts.
II. THE BELL- WATITHEORIES
Of the others who have built upon Noldeke's assumptions mention may
specially be made of Richard Bell and his pupil W. Montgomery Watt. Working
on the hints given by N old eke, Bell made out his own dating and chronological
order of the surahs and passages of the Qur'an, added further assumptions about
the history of the Qur'an and advanced a theory of "revision" of the Qur'anic
texts by the Prophet. His dating and chronological order were carried out
principally in his translation of the Qur'an which appeared in 1937-1939.
2
The
views about the history of the Qur'an as a whole and the theory of revision were
first put forward in a few articles. Subsequently Bell consolidated all these views
in his Introduction to the Qur'dn which was published in 1853. His pupil Watt used
and publicised these views, sometimes with slight modifications, principally in his
Muhammad at Mecca and Muhammad at Medina, published respectively in 1953 and
1956. Next he consolidated his and his mentor's views in a "completely revised
and enlarged" edition of Bell's above mentioned work under the title: Bell's
Introduction to the Qur'dn, published in 1970.
So far as Bell's dating and chronological order of the Qur'anic texts are
concerned, these are as conjectural and faulty as Noldeke's are. In fact no two
orientalists are agreed on these matters. Even Bell's pupil Watt does not fully
endorse his views in this respect.
3
They will not therefore be further discussed.
1
Being aware of the fact that the "readings" tabulated by him constitute what he himself calls "relatively small" material,
Jeffery advances the assumption that "only the relatively few readings that had some theological and philological interest"
could have been remembered and quoted and that many more could have been suppressed in the interest of orthodoxy."
(p. 9). This assumption does in no way help Jeffery's thesis; for the admittedly spurious and suspicious readings that the
commentaries quote and Jeffery tabulates far outweigh the supposedly forgotten and suppressed readings.
2
R. Bell, The .Qur'an Tran.r!ated with a critiml Rearrangement of the Siirah.r, 2 vols., Edinburgh, 1937-1939.
' See W. M. Watt, "The dating of the Qur'iin: A Review of Richard Bell's Theories",joumalofthe RI!JaiA.riaticSmiety,
London, 1957, pp. 46-56.
The question is also somewhat related to Bell's theory about the "revision" of the
Qur'an by the Prophet. This latter theme relates more appropriately to the text of
the Qur'an. It will therefore be discussed in a subsequent chapter.
1
In this section
only the Bell-Watt views about the history of the Qur'an as a whole will be
considered.
Bell and Watt, or rather Watt, takes up from where Arthur Jeffery leaves the
story of the collection of the Qur'an in one compilation. Like the latter, Watt also
questions the fact of 'Abu Bakr's having had the Qur'anic texts collected in one
written compilation and attempts to create doubts about the report and advances
a number of grounds for it. Thus, first, he says that there are various versions of
the report containing many discrepancies. "Thus there is no unanimity about the
originator of the idea of collecting the Qur'an; generally it is said to have been
'Umar, but sometimes 'Abu Bakr is said to have commissioned the 'collection' on
his own initiative. On the other hand, there is a tradition which says 'Umar was
the first to collect the Qur'an and completely excludes Abu Bakr."
2
Now, the discrepancies mentioned about the originator of the idea relate to
matters of detail not to the essence of the fact. It is clear from the reports that
while some narrators emphasize 'Umar's role in pointing out to 'Abu Bakr the
necessity for making the compilation, the others emphasize the fact of 'Abu
Bakr's being the kha!!fah at the time and his having officially commissioned the
collection. The version of the report which attributes this work to 'Umar is given
by Ibn Sa'd who, while describing 'Umar's qualities and deeds, make a rather
casual remark saying: "and he was the first to make a collection of the Qur'an in
the sheets J .:,T_;JI .:.r JJ( r J )."
3
It is noteworthy that nothing is here
spoken about how the work was carried out and by whom. As al-Suyuti points
out, the chain of narrators of this report is broken and the statement can only
mean that 'Umar was the first to suggest the making of the Qur'anic texts in one
compilation.
4
In any case, these discrepancies in the different reports do not in
any way mutually nullify one another; rather they jointly and severally point to the
fact of a collection having been made before the time of 'Uthman. In fact, the
most authentic of these versions very clearly state the role of 'Umar in urging the
matter to the khalifah 'Abu Bakr and the latter's having acceded to the suggestion
and carried it out.
5
The problem with Watt is that he does not bother to examine
1
See injra, chapter XI.
2
Watt, Bell'.r Introduction to the .Qur'iin, Edinburgh, 1970, p. 41.
3
Ibn Sa'd, Tabaqdt, vol. III, Leiden, 1904, p. 202 (Beirut, 1985 edition, p. 281).
4
Jal5.1 al-Din al-Itqdn.fl Vllim al:Qur'iin, vol. I, Riyadh, 1987, p. 165.
the authenticity or otherwise of any particular report and uses whatever he thinks
favourable to his point of view.
A second argument of Watt's is that "the reason given for the step, namely, the
death of a large number of 'readers' in the battle of Yamama" is not convincing
because in the lists of those who fell in that battle "very few are mentioned who
were likely to have had much of the Qur'an by heart. Those killed were mostly
recent converts."
2
It must at once be pointed out that this statement of Watt's is
totally conjectural and wrong. It is not understandable where he found the
information that those killed were mostly recent converts. It is true that the
Muslim army was commanded by Khalid ibn al-Walid and he was relatively a
recent convert; but he did not fall in that battle. Nor was Wahshi, the mawla of
Jubayr ibn Mut'im, who was a recent convert who speared down the apostate
leader Musaylama al-Kadhdhab, killed in that battle. The Muslim army consisted
of a large number of muh4Jirs and ansar and recruits from Makka and other new
Muslims. The standard bearers of the muhqjirs were successively Abd Allah ibn
ibn Ghanim, Salim (mawld of 'Abu I:Iudhayfah ibn 'Utbah ibn Rabi'ah), 'Abu
J:Iudahyfah and Zayd ibn al-Khattab (elder brother of 'Umar ibn

All
of them were very early Muslims, all of them fell in the battle and all of them
more or less memorized the Qur'an. Particularly Salim was known as the best of
the Qur'an "readers" among the muh4Jirs and used to lead them in prayer.
4
The
standard bearer of the ansar was Thabit ibn Qays ibn Shammas.
5
He was known
as khatzb al-ansar (the preacher of the an[dr) and khattb al-Rasul (preacher of the
Messenger).
6
He also fell in the battle. Most of the muhcijiriin and an.[ar who
participated in the campaign knew the Qur'an by heart, in parts or in full. During
the battle 'Abu .f:Iudhayfah inspired them to fight on by addressing them as: "0
possessors of the Qur'an, decorate the Qur'an by deeds .:>T_,A)i .:>T_,AJI J-f

The Companions also encouraged one another by addressing them as "0
bearers of surat al- Baqarah ( o_;.,JI ;;J_,.... y\.;.._.,.:,(

The brunt of the battle was borne
by the muh4Jirs and an[dr and the Makkan Muslims.
9
Among those who fell in the
1
See Bukbdrf, no. 4968.
2
Watt, Belt.r Introdudion eft:, op. cit., p. 41.
' Al-Tabari, Tilrikh, vol. II, Bernt, 1987, p. 280.
4
Bukhilrf, nos. 292, 1140, 7175; Mu.rnadAI!mad, vol. VI, p. 165 (no.25320), al-Dhahabi, Siyar, I, p. 168
1
Al-'fabari, Tilrikb, vol. II, Beirut, 1987, p. 278.
'' Ibn al-Athlr, U.rd a!-Gbilbab, vol. I., p. 239.
7
AI-'fabari, ap. tit., p. 280; Ibn Kathlr, A!-Bidilyah wa a!-Nibilyab, vol. Ill, Beirut, 1987, p. 329; In al-Athlr, A!-Kilmtl Ff
a!-Tilrikb, ed. Abu al-Fida' 'AbdAllah al-Qadi, vol. II, Beirut, 1987, p. 221.
" Ibn Kathlr, op. tit., p. 329.
' op. tit., p. 281 ( "'L,l' J.-i J 4'-' }S"i ;1 J1J .:r-?4--JI J -=.;lS' ;.,.a..Ji 01); Ibn al-Athlr, op. tit., p. 221 ( .J-?4--Ji J .;lS'
battle were many prominent Companions of the Prophet ('-!l>....all .::;bL-).
1
Ibn
al-Athlr gives a list of some 38 Companions of the Prophet who fell in the battle
of Yamama.
2
According to Al-'fabari, 360 of the muh4Jirs and an[ar residents of
Madina, and 300 each of the muhq;irs not residing in Madina and the new Muslims
(tdbi'un) fell in the battle.
3
Nothing could be farther from the truth than Watt's
statement that those who fell in the battle were mostly "recent converts" and that
of those who fell "very few are mentioned who were likely to have had much of
the Qur'an by heart."
A third plea of Watt's is that "much of the Qur'an was already written in some
form or other, so that the death of some of those who could recite it from
memory need not have given rise to the fear that part of the Qur'an would be
lost."
4
Not only "much of the Qur'an" but the whole of it was indeed ~ r i t t e n
down and the whole of it was also preserved in memory; but neither were the
written texts collected in one compilation nor could the memorizers be dispensed
with because the texts were written down. As Watt himself recognises, the written
text was only consonantal, there being no vowel signs and a number of
consonants were still without their distinguishing dots. Hence the proper
recitation of the Qur'an needed the expertise of those who had committed it to
memory and learnt to recite it from the mouth of the Prophet himself. The death
of a number of Qur'an "readers" at the battle of Yamama was thus naturally a
cause of concern for those who were at the helm of affairs and it turned their
attention to the immediate task of having the written texts collected in one
compilation.
Watt's next argument, which he thinks to be "the weightiest criticism of the
tradition", is that if there had been "an official codex" made by 'Abu Bakr, the
other "collections" of the Qur'an could not have become "authoritative" in the
different provinces and the disputes that led to 'Uthman's "recension" would not
have arisen, for "reference could have been made" to it.
5
In thus arguing Watt
either overlooks or tendentially shapes a number of facts. First, the collection
made under 'Abu Bakr was meant for preservation of the written text in one
..s_,.i!l J.-1 J <,.>>l_,l'J r+" )51;L ii
1
1J).
1
Ibn Kathlr, op. cit., p. 330.
2
Ibn al-Athlr, op.cit., pp. 223-224.
' Al-Tabari, op. cit., p. 283 ( .;r.A<i.;ll
1
<:,.WI J.-1 _r.<. .:r- .;r-?4--ll.:r-
1
... 0y
1
;,:r..,')l.; .1!-y. <:,.WI ;;.,....; J.-1 .:r- ;L,.;'>I
1
.;r-?4--JI.:r- J:i .u
1
,'JjA '-'" ;Jt.,')I.:J ,'JjA '-'" >JJ..,')i.; <Jl->-t, ).
4
Watts, Bell's Introduction etc., op.cit., p. 41.
' Ibid.
compilation. His khifdjah was mainly occupied by the task of pacification of the
Arabian peninsula. The "provinces" where the so-called other "collections" are
said to have become authoritative had not yet come into existence so that there
was no question of sending out copies of that collection to the provinces. It was
during the khifdjah of 'Umar that the first phase of conquest and expansion took
place and the Provinces came into existence. Secondly, the so-called other
"collections" of the Qur'an were not at all different types of texts but written
copies more or less complete of the same Qur' anic texts made by individual
Companions of the Prophet who were now posted in the provinces in different
official capacities and who were also in charge of teaching the Qur'an to the
people of their respective jurisdictions. Thirdly, the "disputes" that arose during
the khifdjah of 'Uthman, 'Umar's successor, related not to the differences in the
types of texts but to those of "recitations" due to dialectical differences of the
tribes and peoples involved. And as soon as such differences in "recitations" were
first noticed steps were taken to sort out the dialectical differences and to send
out copies of the compilation made by 'Abu Bakr. That is exactly what 'Uthman
did. It is of utmost importance to remember that the whole development took
place within less than twenty years after the Prophet's death. It is a highly
misleading statement and a gross tendential shaping of the facts that because
different "collections" of the Qur'an. i. e., the written copies with individual
Companions, had become "authoritative" in the provinces there could not have
been any previously made "official copy" of the Qur'an.
Watt's confusion is evident from his next argument. He writes: "Again, the
way in which 'Umar himself is represented elsewhere in insisting that the verse of
stoning was in the Qur'an, is hardly consistent with his having in his possession
an official collection."
1
Here Watt wrongly assumes that 'Umar made the reported
insistence on the so-called verse of stoning during his own khifdjah. This was by
no means the case. Had 'Umar made such insistence while he was the khaf[fah,
none could have possibly prevented him from including the alleged verse in the
Qur'an. It has also been pointed out before that Ibn Sa'd's statement that 'Umar
was the first to make a collection of the Qur'an refers only to his initiative in the
matter during the time of 'Abu Bakr. On the other hand, it needs no pointing out
that 'Umar could not have so spoken about the verse of stoning during
'Uthman's time for the latter succeeded him only after his death. As the report
I Ibid.
to the subject clearly states, 'Umar spoke about the so-called verse of stoning at
the time of making the collection during the time of 'Abu Bakr, but it was
rejected for lack of any supportive evidence either from the memorizers or from
the written copies of the Qur'anic texts.
1
And as Watt himself admits a litde
afterwards, this alleged verse was not and could not have been in the Qur' an.
2
Thus the very report about 'Umar's speaking about the alleged verse of stoning
which Watt cites goes to show that the collection of the Qur'an in one
compilation was made during the time of 'Abu Bakr. Watt also misses the point
that nothing was accepted and included in the compilation unless it was
supported by a corroborative evidence, which meant the comparison of the
written texts with the memorized ones, and vice versa.
"Lasdy", argues Watt, if "Zayd's collection [i. e., under Abu Bakr] was an
official one, ... it is hardly possible that it would pass out of official keeping, even
into the hands of the caliph's daughter

Clearly Watt here completely
disregards the circumstances of the time. The system of archives or official
depository of records had not yet been developed. 'Abu Bakr had made over the
Qur'an compilation to 'Umar because the latter was nominated as successor by
him. 'Umar handed it over to Hafsah not simply because she was his daughter but
also because she was the Prophet's wife and because he ('Umar) had not
nominated his successor but had left the matter of succession to be decided by a
Council of six senior Companions of the Prophet.
Thus the grounds on which Watt questions the authenticity of the report
concerning the collection of the Qur'an in one compilation under 'Abu Bakr are
all unreasonable and untenable. Watt makes this wrong and untenable
assumption, however, to suggest that it was 'Uthman under whom the first hand
collection of the Qur'an was made. Hence in winding up his discussion on the
report about the collection under 'Abu Bakr Watt states that this "traditional
account" was "doubdess gradually elaborated to avoid the awkward fact that the
first 'collection' of the Qur'an was made by 'Uthman, who was gready disliked."
4
When did this supposed gradual elaboration of the account take place and who
were instrumental in doing this are not indicated by Watt. He clearly fixes his
attention on the temporary dislike and discontent which led to the end of
'Uthman's khilafah; but he does not take into account the fact that 'Uthman's own
1
Al-Syli\i, al-Itqt!n ek:, op. <it., p. 167.
2
!did., p. 55.
1
Watt, Belrr Introdu<tion etc., op. dt., p. 41.
' Ibid., p. 42.
kinsmen and supporters came to power shortly after his death and remained in
power for more than a century. So the supposed distortion of the fact could not
have taken place during their rule. Nor were the 'Abbasids, who succeeded the
Umayyads in power, likely to fabricate any account in favour of 'Abu Bakr, for
that would not in any way go to the credit of their dynasty. In fact the supposed
"gradual elaboration of the account" is Watt's another unreasonable assumption.
This is further clear from his treatment of the account of the "collection"
under 'Uthman. Here Watt is confronted with two hard facts, namely, (a)
'Uthman's having borrowed the "collection" in custody for the purpose
of making copies out of it and (b) his having returned that copy to her when the
work of copying was finished. These two facts run counter to any suggestion that
'Uthman carried out a first hand collection of the Qur'an. Hence Watt suggests
that copy was her personal copy and was in no way an "official
collection".
1
Next he cites the report given in Ibn Abi Daud's Kitab
which says that Marwan ibn Hakam, while governor of Medina, had
fU/;tif(sheets) destroyed on the ground that any unusual reading in it might lead to
further dissension, and says that this implies that her copy "was unsuitable as a
basis for the official text. ... It is perhaps specially mentioned to link up this
account with that of the first 'collection' under Abu Bakr." Watt further observes
that it was unlikely that copy was of primary importance, that it could
not have "contained more than what had been arranged in the 'book' by
Mu}:lammad at the time of his death" and could "hardly have been the sole or
main basis of the 'Uthmanic text."
2
This latter statement is Watt's repetition of his mentor Bell's equally arbitrary
assumption that the Prophet had left a collection of written materials, partly
"revised" and partly "unrevised", which he intended to give as the "book" to his
followers but which he could not accomplish because of his sudden death.
3
This
assumption of Bell's and his theory of revision will be discussed in a subsequent
chapter. It is interesting to note, however, that earlier Watt alludes to this
assumption of Bell's in order to suggest that there was really no need for 'Abu
Bakr's making a collection of the Qur'an.
4
And here Watt brings in the same
assumption to suggest that 'Uthman made a first hand collection of the Qur'an.
But leaving aside this inconsistency on Watt's part, it needs to be pointed out that
I Ibid, P 43.
2
Ibid See also Ibn Abi Daiid, Kitah ai-Mas,Jitij; Beirut reprint, 1985, p. 28.
3
See .rupra, p.
Watt, op. dt., pp. 40-41.
the reported destruction of Hafsah's "sheets" by Marwan does not really prove
that her copy could not be the basis of the copies made by 'Uthman's
Commissioners; for, while copying from her copy they were at the same time
instructed to streamline any dialectical variation that might be encountered. In
ordering the destruction of her copy Marwan appears to have had in view the
possibility of any variant reading that might be based on her copy. For one thing,
when everything is considered, there still remain two important questions
unanswered: (a) why did 'Uthman himself not cause copy to be
destroyed while the other "codexes" at Madina were destroyed? And (b) why is
there no mention of 'Uthman's having made use of the other extant codexes, of
which he and the commissioners he appointed for the purpose were quite aware,
in making his "official collection"? The obvious replies to these questions are that
he did not destroy the copy of because he had borrowed it from her on a
promise to return it to her; and that he did not use the other extant codexes
because they were considered superfluous in view of the existence of the
compilation with which had been made during the time of 'Abu Bakr
after taking into consideration all the written and memorized texts.
Watt in effect proceeds on two unwarranted and untenable assumptions. Thus
he says, first, that the tradition about 'Abu Bakr's collection was fabricated to
avoid giving the credit of the work to 'Uthman and then, regarding the report of
the work done by the latter, he again says that it was so manipulated as to link it
up with the first collection under 'Abu Bakr. In fact Watt distorts both the
reports in order to sustain his further assumption that it was 'Uthman who made
a first hand collection of the Qur'an. Hence Watt finally asserts: "there is no
reason now for rejecting two points in the traditional account: (1) the
commissioners were to collect all the pieces of revelation they could find; (2)
where men had remembered it with dialectical variations of the literary language,
they were to make the Meccan forms standard."
1
It must at once be pointed out
that Watt here grossly misstates the facts. The "traditional account" does not at all
say that the commissioners' duty was to make a first hand compilation by
collecting "all the pieces of revelation they could find." It very clearly says that the
Commissioners were to make copies out of the copy with and to
streamline any variations in the reading that might be encountered. It is also not
'quite correct to say that they were asked to standardize what "men had
I Ibid., P 44.
remembered" with dialectical variations. This latter statement emanates from
Watt's (and others') misunderstanding of the whole process of making the first
hand collection which he thinks was done partly out of written copies and partly
out of memorized texts.
1
As already pointed out, the first hand collection under
'Abu Bakr was made on a careful comparison of the written texts with the
memorized ones and vice versa, or on the basis of two independent witnesses for
each piece of text.
2
Such ought to have been the case; for, as the work was
commissioned by the state, no person or persons appointed for the purpose
could reasonably have been instructed to accept and incorporate into the
compilation whatever anyone came up with a written or memorized text. On the
whole Watt's assumption that 'Uthman made a first hand collection and
compilation of the Qur'anic texts is untenable and incorrect. In as much,
however, as he makes this assumption he in effect counters Jeffery's thesis that
'Uthman simply standardized one of a number of rival and different types of
texts.
This is all the more clear from Watt's assessment of the so-called
"pre-Uthmanic codices" and the variant readings reportedly contained in those
codices and collected by Jeffery. Speaking about these variant readings Watt
rightly observes: these varaint readings "chiefly affect the vowels and punctuation,
but occasionally there is a different consonantal text ... The names of the suras,
too, are mostly the same."
3
As already pointed out, the reported variations in
consonantal text are merely synonyms or explanatory expressions for the words
in the Qur'an. Speaking particularly about the two most well-known codices of
'AbdAllah ibn Mas'ud and Ubayy ibn Ka'b Watt observes that while the former's
codex omits the last two surahs of the Qur'an and also probably the first surah (
a i - F a t i ~ a h ), that of Ubayy ibn Ka'b includes not only these three surahs but also
two other short surahs. "Short as the text" of these two pieces is, observes Watt,
"there are a number of points where the linguistic usage is not paralleled in the
Qur'an." They might have been used by Muslims as prayers during the Prophet's
time, "but they cannot have been part of the Qur'an." "Thus on the whole",
concludes Watt, "the information which has reached us about the pre-'Uthmanic
codices suggests that there was no great variation in the actual contents of the
Qur'an in the period immediately after the Prophet's death."
4
I Ibid. p. 40.
2
Supra, p.
' Ibid., p. 45.
4
Ibid.
III. JOHN BURTON's COUECIION OF THE QUR AN
The other work which may be considered in this connection is John Burton's
The Collection of the Qur'an which appeared in 1977.
1
He builds upon the
suggestions and assumptions of his predecessors, mainly the Goldziher-Schacht
assumption that the reports and hadfth literature in general are fabrications qf later
generations of Muslims in the second and third Islamic century and the Bell-Watt
assumptions that the Prophet had made a "collection" of the revelations, some
revised and some unrevised, and that the reports about the collection of the
Qur'an are manipulated in order to give 'Abu Bakr and 'Umar the main credit
and to 'Uthman a subsidiary role. With these assumptions Burton blends his own
theory of naskh (abrogation). He says that the Prophet himself had compiled the
Qur'an. Later Muslim jurists, however, forged the concept of naskh in order to
justify certain ftqh positions. They forged certain "verses" in support of their views
and held that these verses once formed part of the Qur'an but were abrogated. In
order to justify this theory they also claimed that the Prophet could not have
compiled the Qur'an in his lifetime because naskh of any 'qyah could occur at any
time as long as he lived; and since he could not have compiled the Qur'an, it must
have been done by his Companions. Hence arose the "forged" narrations about
the compilation of the Qur'an. Initially, the role was given to 'Uthman; but as he
became unpopular, the credit of initial compilation was given to Abu Bakr and
'Umar and a lesser role was assigned to 'Uthman.
2
This motive of proving the
validity of naskh, emphasizes Burton, "induced the Muslims to exclude their
Prophet from the history of the collection of their Qur'an text. It was a
compelling motive. It was their only motive."
3
It is of course a fact that some later Muslims writers state that the Qur'an
could not have been compiled during the Prophet's lifetime because naskh could
take place at any time during his life.
4
But it is very important to note that this
statement is neither the Prophet's nor that of his Companions. It is merely the
opinion of such writers who intend to justify the compilation of the Qur'an after
the Prophet's death, not to suppress the fact of his having compiled the Qur'an
nor to sustain the theory of naskh. It is not necessary to discuss here the concept
of naskh.
5
It would suffice only to point out that whatever might be the
1
Published by the Cambridge University Press.
2
J. Burton, The Collection ofthe Qur'dn, pp. 230-234.
' Ibid., p. 232.
4
See Al-Suyl!t;i, AI-Itqdn etc., vol. I., p.
5
There is indeed a vast literature on the subject. See for a concise and useful discussion Ibn al-Jawzi, Nawd.rikb ai:Qur'dn,
implications and meanings attached to it in later times, the concept has its root in
the Qur'an itself.
2
It thus really betrays a lack of knowledge of the Qur'an to
make such a bold assertion that the theory of naskh was forged by later Muslim
jurists.
Burton indeed makes a series of four specific forgery allegations against an
unidentified body of Muslim jurists and traditionists. He says (a) that they forged
the concept of naskh; (b) they forged a number of "verses" to sustain their theory;
(c) they suppressed the fact of the Prophet's having himself made a compilation
of the Qur'an and (d) they forged the reports regarding the compilation of the
Qur'an by 'Abu Bakr and 'Uthman. He advances no specific evidence in support
of any of these allegations. His main or rather sole prop is the Goldziher-Schacht
assumption about the "traditions" and he explicitly states that he re-examines the
Muslim accounts of the collection of the Qur'an "in the light of the studies by
Goldziher and Schacht."
3
It needs to be pointed out that the Goldziher-Schacht
assumptions are by no means unassailable; rather they are wrong and untenable.
4
But leaving aside that premise of Burton's, his theories and assumptions are
untenable on the grounds of simple reason and common sense.
Thus first, even if it is assumed for argument's sake that the jurists forged the
theory of naskh in order to justify certain fiqh positions, there was no need to link
this theory of naskh with the process of collection and compilation of the
Qur'anic text. For they all hold that whatever naskh (abrogation) was there it all
happened during the lifetime of the Prophet. Also the most that they held was
that certain verses supporting their fiqh positions were originally in the Qur'an but
were subsequently abrogated in respect of the reading of the abrogated text but
not in respect of its rule ( ~ u k m ) . They also held and believed that nothing could
be added to or detracted from the Qur'an after the Prophet's death. Thus,
whether the Prophet himself collected all the Qur'anic texts in one compilation or
some of his Companions did it after his death is totally immaterial and irrelevant
to the theory of naskh. None of the protagonists of the theory of naskh ever
suggested that such and such verse was originally in the Qur'an but was dropped
by the subsequent compiler. Such a suggestion, besides being subversive of the
integrity of the Qur'an, would render the theory of naskh simply superfluous.
1
There is indeed a vast literature on the subject. See for a concise and useful discusion Ibn al-Jawzi, NawJrikh ai;Qur'dn,
ed. Muhammad Ashraf 'Ali al-Malabari, Madina Islamic University, 1404/1984.
2
See the Qur'an, 2:106.
' Burton, op.dt., p. 5.
4
See infra, pp. 245ff. for discussion on the Godziher-Schacht assumptions about badftb literature.
JEFFERY-BELL-WATI-BURTON ASSUMPTIONS 243
Secondly, not all the fiqh rules are direcdy based on the Qur'an. Many of them
are indeed derived from sunnah, i. e., the Prophet's instructions and practices.
There is also a theory that some sunnah ruling overrides the Qur'anic
prescriptions in specific cases. The jurists who are supposed to have been
confronted with the alleged fiqh positions could have had their way by simply
forging a ~ a d f t h regarding their specific requirement instead of going through the
labyrinthian process of forging the alleged verses of the Qur'an, then forging the
story that those verses had been abrogated and finally forging the story of the
collection of the Qur'an and suppressing the fact of the Prophet's having already
done so. Burton's theory assumes a net-work of forgery operating through a
succession of generations in an environment devoid of any dissident groups and
differing views. The well-known course of Islamic history does not admit of the
existence of such an absurd situation.
Thirdly, Burton's (or rather Watt's) theory requires us to believe that the. credit
for the collection of the Qur'an was first given to 'Uthman. It does not explain
why, if the protagonists of naskh invented the story by suppressing the Prophet's
role in the matter, why should they have chosen 'Uthman, the third successor of
the Prophet, for their story instead of his immediate successor 'Abu Bakr? After
all, it could not have any imaginable bearing on their purpose to select the third
instead of the first and immediate successor of the Prophet. The question indeed
involves a look into the special occasion and circumstance for the attribution of
the work either to 'Abu Bakr or to 'Uthman. It would then appear that the special
circumstance during 'Abu Bakr's time was an apprehension about the probability
of loss of any part of the .Qur'an due to the death of a large number of the
Companions and Qur'an "bearers" (either memorizers or possessors of written
texts)
1
giving rise to the need for having the Qur'anic texts collected in one
written compilation; while the special circumstance of 'Uthman's time was the
emergence of variant readings due to a lack of circulation of an authentic and
complete copy of the Qur'an in the far-flung provinces which had not come into
existence during 'Abu Bakr's time. Thus both 'Abu Bakr and 'Uthman responded
respectively to the special circumstances of their times and both did equally
meritorious and praiseworthy deeds, the one having the Qur'anic texts collected
in one written compilation, and other having made authentic copies by
streamlining dialectical variations, sending out these copies to the different
1
It may be recalled here that Salim (mawld of 'Abu I;Iudhayfah), the standard bearer of the muhdjimn at the battle of
Yamama who died in that battle was both a Qur'an memorizer and possessor of a "codex" of the Qur'anic texts.
provinces and withdrawing and suppressing the unauthorised and unchecked
codices. What they both did was just in the fitness of things and the reports that
speak about their respective roles do indeed record the facts. In a way, 'Othman's
work was bolder, more hazardous and productive of more far-reaching and
abiding consequences and, therefore, it is equally if not more worthy of praise
and appreciation. 'U thman did indeed become unpopular for some of his
administrative acts and he ultimately fell a victim to that unpopularity. But his
work relating to the Qur'an was appreciated equally by his friends and foes and it
was never made a point of stigma on him by his adversaries. The fiction of his
work in respect of the Qur'an being of "secondary" importance is an invention of
the orientalists like Watt and Burton who use it to bolster up their unreasonable
and untenable theories.
CHAPTER X
II. REVISIONISM AT ITS CLIMAX
I. ON REVISIONISM IN GENERAL
It may be recalled that starting with the mid-nineteenth century orientalists like
A. Sprenger and William Muir down to the present time almost all the orientalists
treat the sources of Islamic history with unconcealed skepticism. Specially they
consider the reports (traditions/ f?adith) as motivated and partial and accept or
reject these arbitrarily as they suit their purpose. This tendency to interpret
Islamic history according to what the orientalists think to be correct may be
termed revisionism. But it applies more specifically to the approach of a group of
orientalists who have of late come forward with the view that the Qur'an came
into being much later, in the second century of Islam. They do so by casting
doubts on the sources of early Islamic history as a whole and by a number of
other assumptions. They explicitly or implicitly rely mainly on the assumptions
about padfth literature advanced by Ignaz Goldziher, a nineteenth century scholar
of Hungarian Jewish origin, and the mid-twentieth century German Jewish
scholar Joseph Schacht.
Goldziher attempted to show that padith literature came into existence at the
earliest in the second century of Islam, and that the isndd system in it is not
reliable and that most of the reports, if not all, are fabrications brought into
existence by party, political, dogmatic, juristic and ideological exigencies of the
second/ third century of Islam.
1
Such views and assumptions have been carried to
an extreme by ]. Schacht in his Origins rif Muhammadan Jurisprudence published in
1950. Besides complementing and supporting his predecessors' views Schacht
advanced two novel suggestions, namely, (a) that Islamic Law falls outside the
scope of the "religion" of Islam so that the Qur'an might virtually be ignored as a
source of Islamic jurisprudence and (b) that even the apparently historical hadith
was not free from suspicion because, as he says, this too was formulated on
juristic considerations.
These views have been rightly criticised and rejected as untenable not only by
Muslim scholars
2
but even by the generality of the orientalists themselves. The
1
!GNAZ GoLDZIHER, Mohamedanische Studien (first published 1890), Vo.Il, tr. into English by C.R. Barber and S.M. Stem
under title Mu.r/im Studie.r, Vol.II, London, 1971. See also A. Guillaume, The Tradition.r ofl.rlam: An Introdudion to the Study of
Hadith Literature, Oxford, 1924.
2
See for instance M. M. AL-A'?AMi, Studies in Early IJadi'th Literature, Beirut, 1968, Chaps. VI, VII; MO!JSIN 'Aso AL-NkpR,
Dird.rdt Goldzfher Fi' al-Sunnah wa Makdnatuhd al- 'IImiyyah (Arabic text), unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Tunis,
1404/1984; and M. Luqman Salafi, Naqd al-lfadi'th 'inda al-MuJ:iadditbi'n Sanadan wa Matanan wa Dahd Ma!?fl'im al-Mu.ra.rhriqi'n,
views and assumptions of Schacht have been specially dealt with by M. M.
Al-A'?ami in his On Schacht's Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence.
1
It has been
shown that Schacht's views about isndd are wrong and that his assumption
regarding the "Living Tradition" and its having been projected back onto the
Prophet are unfounded. A'?ami has referred to the specific juridical activities of
the Prophet as well as to the first century Islamic legal literature and has shown
that Schacht is wrong in thinking that law in the first century of Islam was not
based on the Qur'an and the sunnah. Taking Schacht on his own grounds and
quoting in extenso the very texts and authorities cited by him, it has been
demonstrated that in each case Schacht has taken his argument out of context,
has misunderstood or misinterpreted the texts and has otherwise advanced
conclusions not substantiated by the authorities he has adduced in their support.
Further, it has been shown that in forming his opinions about such jurisconsults
as Imam Malik, Schacht has relied not on their own writings but on what their
contemporaries or near-contemporaries have said about them.
Of the orientalists themselves who do not accept Schacht's extreme
conclusions mention may specially be made of N.J. Coulson who points out that
when Schacht's thesis "is systematically developed to the extent of holding that
the evidence of legal traditions carries us back to about the year A. H. 100 only;
and when the authenticity of every alleged ruling of the Prophet is denied, a void
is assumed, or rather created, in the picture of the development of law in early
Muslim society. From a practical standpoint, and taking the attendant
circumstances into consideration, the notion of such a vacuum is difficult to
accept. "
2
The position taken in this respect by the orientalists in general is best
summed up by Montgomery Watt, who is otherwise in no way friendly to the
Prophet of Islam and the Qur'an. He says: "What in fact Western biographers[ of
the Prophet] have done is to assume the truth of the broad outlines of the
picture .... given by the sfrah, and to use this as the framework into which to fit as
much Qur'anic material as possible. The sounder methodology is to regard the
Qur'an and the early traditional accounts as complementary sources .... "
3
Riyadh, 1984.
1
Published by the King Saud University, Riyadh and john Willy and Sons, Inc, New York, 1985. See also Abu Zahra,
"An analytical study of Dr. Schacht's IIIusions",Journalofl.rlamitStudie.r,Cairo, val. I., no. 1,1968, pp. 24-44.
2
N.J. CouLSON, A Hirtory of I.rlamic Law, London, 1964,pp. 64-65. See also his "European criticism of Hadith Literature"
in The Cambridge Hirtory ofArabic Literature: Arabic Literature to tbe end oftbe Uma)'Jad Period, Cambridge, 1983, pp. 317-321.
' W. M. WAIT, M. at M, XV. See also his "The materials used by Ibn Isi).aq" in BERNARD LEWIS & P.M. HoLT (eds.),
Hirtorian.r oftbe Midle Ea.rt, London, 1962, pp. 23-24.
REVISIONISM AT ITS CLIMAX 247
Still more notable is the remarks of Maxime Rodinson, a Marxist Jew. Writing
about the ~ a d i t h and early sirah literature as source materials he observes:
"An interval of a hundred years is not excessive for the collective memory of a society such as
that formed by early Arab Islam. An Arab tribe of the Sudan transmits orally (even today)
historical traditions and poetry, the oldest of which are attributed to an important tribal ancestor
who lived in the second half of the sixteenth century and whose existence is attested by texts. It
ought to be pointed out here that in ideological movements the question of origins is a matter of
great interest during times of expansion. In my childhood and adolescence I personally knew
Charles Rappoport who in his own youth had visited Friedrich Engels. Both of us had a
considerable number of books on the biography of this latter (hom, it should be noted, in 1820);
otherwise I would undoubtedly have questioned my informer avidly on the life of one of the
founders of Marxism. If I had done so I would now be in a position of informing those younger
than myself regarding events going back to 1840."
1
One might add that if he had done so, he would simply have acted as the tabi'Un,
the generation younger than the Companions of the Prophet, had done. In two
notes to the above observations Rodinson further states that similar conclusions
on the fundamental authenticity of the sirah literature are made by R. Paret, while
J. W. Fueck goes further in his rejection of the theses of Schacht, criticising even
his conception of the development of juridical tradition. Rodinson also mentions
that the Institute of Marxism-Leninism in Moscow lately "published a volume
with a French edition (Souvenirs sur Marx et Engles, Moscow, n. d., the Russian
edition dated 1956) where one finds, for example (pp. 344-353), some
recollections of Engles published in 1927 by Alexe Vaden who died only in 1939.
Engles had related to him some details of the period from 1840 to 1848 of his life
and that of Marx." Also, Franzisca K.ugelmann's recollections on Marx based on
the latter's reminiscing about his childhood and the accounts of his parents were
put into writing only in 1928. "We might call that", observes Rodinson," a family
isnad ... highly suspect according to Schacht."
2
Notwithstanding such criticisms and general rejection of the
Goldzihet-Schacht fallacies, some orientalists thought it fit not only to relapse
into them but even to inflate them out of proportion in an attempt to obliterate
the whole course of the history of Islam and the existence of the Qur'an during
the first two centuries. In fact, the revisionists' philosophy is geared to the needs
1
Maxime Rodinson, "A Critical Survey of Modem Studies on Muhammad", in Merlin Swartz (ed.), Studie.r in l.rlam, Oxford
University Press, 1981, p. 44.
2
Ibid., notes 123 and 124 at pp. 75-76.
and objects of the modern Jewish society and it is tersely spelt out by one of their
exponents, Professor and Rabbi Hertzberg. He says that "modernity" for the Jews
"meant a going beyond into some wider category of being, within which past
narrowness, and especially the discreet life and practices of the Jewish
community, are ended .... I suspect that for Jews modernity begins with the idea,
whether conscious or unconscious that if you can destroy the medieval past of
Europe, then Jews and non-Jews will begin all over again, on an equal footing."
1
This objective of being integrated into the wider society underlies the
extension of Hertzberg's suggestion to "destroy the medieval past" in the case of
the Middle East.
II. J. W ANSBOROUGH
1
S FALLACIES
The lead in this respect was given by J. Wansborough who gave vent to his
views in two works published in quick succession, namely, Qur'anic Studies: Sources
and Methods of Scriptural Interpretation (1977) and The Sectarian Milieu: Content and
Composition of Islamic Salvation History (1978). By employing what is called the
"instruments and techniques" of biblical criticism such as "form criticism, source
criticism, redaction criticism", etc., Wansborough hypothesizes in these works:
(a) That different parts of the Qur'an originated in different communities
located not in Arabia but in Iraq or Syria and that these evolved only gradually
from originally independent prophetical traditions ("prophetical logia'') during a
long period of oral transmission, assuming their final and "canonical" form in the
late second/ eighth century.
(b) That the texts that were given scriptural status were only a small part of the
vast body of traditions and the rest of these became instead the staff of l;adfth.
2
(c) That this development took place in a "sectarian milieu" in which
Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians and the Believers hurled ideas and claims against
one another until these groups had clearly delineated their confessional,
theological and ritual boundaries.
(d) That this "canonization" of the Qur'anic text was linked with the rise of
Classical Arabic and its grammar and the appearance of the Qur'anic
commentaries;
(e) That the "polemical character" of much of the Qur'an suggests that an
important Jewish opposition served as one of the motivations behind its
"canonization";
1
Hertzberg, Gf1!at Confrontations in Jewish Hirtory, p. 131, Quoted by M. M. Impact International, op. cit, p. 28.
2
]. Wansborough, Qur'dnic Studie.r. Sources and Methodr of Scriptural Intetpf1!tation, Oxford, 1077, p. 44.
(f) That the Islamic tradition is an example of what is known to biblical
scholars as 'salvation history': "a theologically and evangelically motivated story of
a religion's origins invented late in the day and projected back in time;" the whole
process being similar to that of the canonization of the Hebrew scripture;
1
(g) That "the reason that no Islamic source material from the first century or
so of Islam has survived... is that it never existed"; nor can most Muslim
traditions be confirmed by contemporary non-Muslim sources. Taking Schacht as
his authority Wansborough further states that the Qur'anic text did not serve as a
basis for Muslim law before the ninth century.
2
Simultaneously with the appearance of Wansborough's works, there appeared
another highly controversial work prepared on similar lines by Patricia Crone and
Michael Cook under the title: Hagarism: The making of the Islamic World (1977).
Crone and Cook admit that that they "did not say much about the Koran in
Hagarism that was not based on Wansborough".
3
The views contained in this
latter work do not therefore require separate treatment.
Wansborough's conclusions are clearly and admittedly an inflation of the
untenable Goldziher-Schacht assumptions and they immediately elicited sharp
criticisms even by most of the orientalists themselves, some of whom describe his
work as "drastically wrongheaded", "ferociously opaque" and a "colossal
self-deception".
4
In fact it is simply a high-sounding nonsense. His "awkward
prose style, diffuse organization" and "confused presentation", observes F. M.
Donner, "makes grasping even his basic points all the more difficult."
5
Wansborough relies on a series of assumptions and suggestions rather than on
straight arguments; and these may best be refuted by general arguments.
First, he is clearly swayed by what he knows of the evolution and redaction of
the text of the Bible and proceeds to project that situation on to the Qur'an; but
he clearly fails to note a very important fact. The history of the redaction of the
Bible illustrates that a religious scripture, unlike an ordinary compilation, is always
launched not surreptitiously by isolated and scheming individuals but by a
recognized body such as a council, a synod or similar authorities. It is invariably a
I Ibid, PP 42, 45
2
Ibid., p. 44.
' Quoted in Toby Lester, "What is the Koran", The Atlantic Monthly, January 1999, p. 55.
4
Ibid. See also the review of,Qur'dnic Studies by Paret in Der I.rlam, vol. 55 (1978), p. 354; by van Ess in Bibliotbeca Orientalia,
vol. 35 (1978), p. 350; by Graham in journal of the Amerit-an Oriental Sodety, vol. 100 (1980), p. 138; and of the Sectarian Milieu
by Madelung in Der I.rlam, vol. 57 (1980), pp. 354-355; and by van Ess in Bulletin oftbe School of Oriental and African Studies,
vol. 43 (1980), pp. 137-139.
5
Frederick M. Donner, Narrative.r ofirlamic Origin.r The beginning.r qf1.rlamic Hirtorical Writing, Princeton, 1998, p. 38.
momentous public event which cannot escape notice in the chronicles of the
time. Wansborough and his disciples do not and cannot point to any such event
showing the gradual evolution or redaction of the Qur'an. As Donner points out:
Wansborough "nowhere suggests who was responsible for deciding what did, or
did not, belong to the Qur'anic canon. To pin the responsibility for such a
process simply on 'the community' or 'scholars' is too vague; we need to have
some idea of what individuals, or at least what groups, were involved in making
such decisions; and what interests they represented; yet Wansborough remains
silent on this question."
1
Second, if the Qur'an "evolved only gradually in the seventh and eighth
centuries, during a long period of oral transmission", as Wansborough suggests,
and if the Islamic tradition, like the Christian "salvation history", was a
"theologically and evangelically motivated story" invented "late in the day and
projected back in time", such a process would have found mention in some form
or other in the historical accounts of the time that have come down to us and of
the existence of which Wansborough and his co-thinkers do not deny. It can by
no means be imagined that the Muslim historians and traditionists of the seventh
and eighth centuries all colluded to suppress the alleged gradual evolution of the
Qur'an during their own time and united to invent an "evangelically motivated
story" of their religion's origin and projected it back in time. By the eighth century
the Muslim scholars and theologians themselves were divided into various groups
and sects and, as the orientalists themselves mention, the Mu 'ta:dlites, among
others, were debating various theological issues including the nature of the
Qur'an as the "uncreated Word of God". Yet none of these divergent groups
allude even indirectly to such a thing as the gradual evolution of the Qur'an or its
redaction during their own or the immediately preceding decades. Also, we do
not have to depend about the determination of this fact solely on the Muslim
sources. Since the very time of the Prophet and before the end of the seventh
century the Muslims came in hostile as well as peaceful relationships with the
Persian and Byzantine powers; and Christian and Jewish scholars were holding
debates and discussions with their Muslim counterparts about Islam and the
Qur'an. Yet, there is no allusion whatsoever in the Greek, Byzantine or other
non-Muslim sources of these two centuries to the alleged gradual evolution or
redaction of the Qur'an during that period.
I Ibid., PP 37-38.
Third, Wansborough does not explain how the eventually canonized Qur'anic
text was in the late second century of Islam "imposed on people from Spain to
Central Asia who may have been using somewhat different texts for a long time,
and why no echo of this presumed operation - which, one imagines, would have
aroused sharp opposition- is to be found in our sources."
1
As M. M.
points out, the worst absurdity of Wansborough's theory is that it implies that
"the Muslims came first and the Qur'an followed later."
2
Fourth, in saying that the Qur'anic text was formulated out of a vast body of
"oral traditions" Wansborough fails to notice that the Qur'an differs very
distinctively in diction and literary style from those of the literature. In fact
it differs in literary form and style from any writing in Arabic, past or present.
The uniqueness of the Qur'an lies in its distinctive literary style and form.
Whatever view one may take of the origin of the Qur'an, one having some
knowledge of Arabic will not fail to notice the difference between the literary
style of the Qur'an and that of the literature. They cannot simply have
d fh f
" 1 eli' n3
emerge out o t e same corpus o ora tra t1ons .
Fifth, one of Wansborough's main suggestions is that the Qur'anic text was
formulated and "canonized" for liturgic purposes. This is a very
conception about the Qur'anic text. While each and every part of the Qur'an can
be and is used for prayer, its contents deal with doctrines, belief in One Only
God, behest to worship Him Alone, description of rewards for obedience to His
guidance and of punishment for disobedience, precepts, rules of day-to-day
conduct, rites, practices and provisions regarding a variety of subjects relating to
man's life and activities. It is simply unhistorical and anachronistic to suggest, as
Wansborough does, that the Qur'an was given its "canonical" and "liturgic" form
only late in the second century of Islam; for it presupposes that till that time the
Muslims did not use to pray or did not use the Qur'an in their prayer; both of
which presuppositions are completely wrong. There are unimpeachable evidences
to show that the Muslims started praying and used the Qur'an in their prayers
since the time of the Prophet, reciting its various long and short surahs. The
I Ibid., p. 38.
2
M. M. al-A'zami," Orientalists and the Qur'an", Impact International, January, 2000, p. 30.
3
One line oE'argument adopted by Donner to disprove Wansborough's hypothesis is to show the difference between the
"content" of the Qur'an and that of the &adith literature (Donner, op. cit, pp. 39-60). In doing so, however, Donner
implicitly lends support to the Goldziher-Schacht theory of the ljadith literature being a product of later times, which is not
correct. Donner also seems to overlook the fact that in many respects the &adith literature is elucidatory of the Qur'an. He
is however very right in his general conclusion that "the Qur'an text is a literary artifact emanating from the earliest
community of believers in Arabia".
Qur'an was "canonized" since the very beginning. Nothing could be a more
wanton disregard of history and a worse misunderstanding of Islam and the
Qur'an than to suggest that it was "canonized" after the death of the Prophet as
imagined by Noldeke and his successor orientalists, or as late as the late second
century of Islam, as supposed by Wansborough.
Sixth, Wansborough misconceives that some of the passages of the Qur'an
contain "variant versions" of the same information, indicating a process of
gradual development of the story. The allusion is to the passages containing
stories of the Prophets. This point, it may be recalled, has been made by
Margoliouth and Watt, among others, to support their theory of gradual growth
in the Prophet's knowledge of Biblical information. The untenability of this latter
theory has been pointed out earlier.
1
Wansborough's hypothesis is only an
extension of this untenable theory. As one reviewer points out, "even if one
concurs with Wansborough's specific conclusion on this point, it remains possible
that the development he posits could have taken place within thirty years, rather
than two hundred."
2
Seventh, Wansborough confuses the history and nature of the "variant
readings" of some Qur'anic phrases or expressions as noted by the Muslim
commentators themselves and holds that these represent the residue of
paraphrasing of Qur'anic ideas that took place during what he thinks the
compilation of the Qur'anic texts ('masoretic exegesis''), the evolution of
Classical Arabic grammar and the development of the exegetical literature - the
Qur'an commentaries. He clearly mixes up a number of independent themes and
subjects, particularly the rise of classical Arabic grammar and the development of
the science of Qur'anic commentary. His assumptions and arguments in. these
two respects have been very effectively challenged and his main thesis of a late
Qur'anic text has been refuted by Versteegh in his recent study: Arabic Grammar
and Qur'anic Exegesis.
Eighth, if the Qur'an was formulated outside Arabia in the Fertile Crescent or
Syria, it would invariably have borne an impress of the environment of those
regions. Specially the people of these places, particularly those of Syria and
Palestine, would not have made Makka the focal point of Islam and the Qur'an.
Instead they would in all likelihood have fixed Jerusalem as the centre and qibla of
Islam. Yet, not only Makka and the K.a'ba are given special place in the Qur'an, it
1
Supra, p. 46ff.
2
Donner, op. cit., p. 37, citing Graham, op. cit, p. 140.
bears an indelible impress of the environment and life of the Prophet Muhammad
himself in Makka and Madina. Apart from the testimony of the reports that are
undoubtedly authentic, the internal evidence of the Qur'an itself proves its
contemporaneity with the life and mission of Mu);lammad, peace and blessings of
Allah be on him. Besides being a corpus of the message and teachings he
delivered, it refers to such events and incidents of his life and in such terms as
could not have been inserted by any subsequent Muslim compiler or editor. Thus,
besides referring to the contemporary events and incidents like the battles of
Badr, and Khandaq, the objections of the Quraysh unbelievers and the
Madinan Jews and replies to those objections, the complaints made by the
Prophet to Allah for the opposition and unbelief of the latter, the Qur'an asks the
Prophet, as already mentioned, not to move his tongue quickly to repeat the text
delivered to him by the angel,
1
is mildly rebuked for his inattention to a poor and
blind enquirer
2
, is directed not to drive away poor and humble believers from his
company,
3
is asked to compose his temporary misunderstanding with his

is warned that if he gave out anything falsely in the name of God he would be
severely punished and none would be able to give him any helpS, etc. No
subsequent composer or compiler would have mentioned these things in such a
way as they are done in the Qur'an. These statements have all the characteristics
of being dictated to the Prophet and delivered by him immediately to his
audience. The more closely one examines the text and internal evidence of the
Qur'an the more one will be convinced of its absolute contemporaneity with him.
Ninth, Wansborough's hypothesis that the Qur'an emerged in a "sectarian
milieu" wherein Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians and Believers hurled ideas and
claims against one another until all the groups had clearly defined their doctrinal
and confessional identities suggests that the groups mentioned had till then no
clearly defined existence. This is totally unhistorical and untenable. No confusion
could have been worse confounded. In fact the supposed claims and
counter-claims of ideas presuppose the existence of such clearly defined groups.
Again, Wansborough recognizes that much of the Qur'anic text presupposes an
important Jewish opposition. This very acknowledgement on his part is a strong
argument in favour of the fact that the part of the Qur'an which refers to the
I Q. 75:16.
2
Q. 80:1-10.
' Q. 6:52.
4
Q. 66:1.
5
Q. 69:46
Jewish opposition was revealed at the early Madinan period of the Prophet's life
when the Jewish opposition to him and to Islam was very strong. We do not
know of any such Jewish opposition during the late Umayyad or early 'Abbasid
period.
Tenth, Wansborough and his followers like Cook and Crone seem to labour
under some confusion about what they call "oral transmission". The Qur'an was
of course committed to memory by the Prophet (p.b.h.) and many of his
companions. But it was not simply "orally transmitted" as such. While committing
to memory, the Prophet had also the text of the Qur'an written on different
materials used for writing at that time. The act of memorizing was a simultaneous
and additional method of preserving the text. That is why when copies of the
Qur'an were distributed in various parts of the Islamic dominions during the time
of Caliph 'Uthman (r.a., 644-656 A.C.) it did not mean an end to the practice of
memorizing the entire Qur'an by capable Muslims. As already mentioned, the
practice has continued since the time of the Prophet till today. This process is by
no means what is called "oral transmission" of the text.
Eleventh, the statement that "no Islamic source material from the first century
of Islam or so has survived" because "it never existed" is a grossly misleading and
incorrect statement. It is misleading because it ignores the Qur'an as a source
material for the early history or rise of Islam and simply adopts the extreme
Goldziher-Schacht position regarding the "traditional" accounts, i. e., the badfth
and sirah literature. But the reports that speak of the coming of the Qur'an to him
and of his mission and struggles are authentic and contemporary. They are
reports given by the Prophet's Companions and participants in the events.Nor are
they what is called mere "oral transmissions". Many of the Prophet's Companions
were in the habit of writing down his statements and utterances
1
so much so that
once he had to interfere and ask them not to write down all his statements lest
these should be mixed up with the text of the Qur'an.
2
After his death (632 A.C.)
they became all the more careful to act upon his statements and directives and
took steps to preserve and transmit them. Thus we know that 'Aban (b. 15 H.),
son of the third Caliph 'Uthman ibn 'Affan (r.a.), collected reports of the
Prophet's sayings and deeds and transmitted them to a number of persons
including 'Abu Bakr, son of the Prophet's governor of Najran, Mul)ammad ibn
'Amr ibn Hazm.
3
Another contemporary of 'Aban's,, 'Urwah ibn al-Zubayr (b. 26
1
Bukhdri, nos. 111-113; Musnad, II, 192,207,215,403.
2
Muslim, n. 3004,
H.), gained fame as a traditionist and jurist. "His relationship alone", says ].
Horovitz, "placed him in the position to obtain numerous accounts concerning
the early days of Islam at first hand; from his father, from his mother, and above
all from his aunt, 'A'isha whom he was never tired of visiting and questioning."
2
One of 'Urwah's students, Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri ( 51-124 H.) made a large number
of compilations of badfth and these were kept in the state store. When Caliph
Al-Walid died in 96. H. these were carried to another repository by means of a
number of animals.
3
Thus within less than half a century after the Prophet's death
the systematic collection and preservation of badfth was started by his surviving
companions and their children. The subsequent ~ a d f t h compilations were based
on these earlier compilations, supplemented by reports received through
unbroken and unimpeachably trustworthy narrators. Nothing could therefore be
farther from the truth than Wansborough's assertion that "no Islamic source
material from the first century of Islam has survived" or that the "oral
transmission" came to be given written form only from the latter half of the
eighth century onwards.
Even reports of events given orally by the participants in them after half a
century or so of their occurrence are better materials for their history than written
records made of them by non-participant contemporaries. That is why personal
accounts given even now-a-days by the first world war or second world war
veterans who participated in those memorable events or suffered persecution at
Hider's concentration camps are of especial value as source materials for the
history of those events.
Last but not least, Wansborough's analysis, as another critic points out, "was
guided predominandy by generalizations drawn from the history of the biblical
text, which were then applied to Muslim scripture"; but "the vasdy different
historical contexts in which these supposedly parallel processes took place were
not explicidy recognized or taken into account".
4
Further, if "Wansborough is
correct that approximately a century and a half elapsed before Muslim scripture
was established in 'canonical' form, then none of the surviving manuscripts can
be attributed to the Umayyad or even the very early 'Abbasid period; particularly,
1
Ibn Sa'd, Tabqdt, V, p. 151; Al-Dhahabi, Siyar, VI, pp. 351-353.
2
J. Horovitz, "The Earliest biographies of the Prophet and their authors" (tr. from German by Marmaduke Pickthall),
Irlamzi Culture, I, 1927 (pp. 535-559), p. 547.
3
Ibn Sa'd, Tabaqdt, ll, p. 389.
4
Estelle Whelan, "Forgotten Witness: Evidence for the Early Codification of the Qur'an", Journal of the American Oriental
Sotiery,Vol. 118, No.1, 1998, pp.2, 3.
256 1BE QUR'AN AND THE ORIENTALISTS
one controversial manuscript discovered in San'a' in the 1970, no. 20-33.1, for
which a date around the turn of the eighth century has been proposed".
1
We shall presently come to the subject of the San'a' find. Before doing so,
however, it would be worthwhile to see how the Schacht-Wansborough virus has
affected some others.
III. YAHUDA D. NEVO ET AL: DIGGING THE EAR1B TO BURY THE PAST
Wansborough of course prefaced his absurd theories with the safety phrases
that these were "conjectural", "provisional " and tentative and emphatically
provisional."
2
Such safety phrases are, however, typical with many other
orientalists like Muir and Watt whose writings are replete with them and who
seem to be quite aware that such phrases are only a matter of form and that their
use is the more likely to make their theories accepted as established facts with
willing and predisposed minds. In fact this has happened to many of their
conjectures and assumptions; and exactly that has happened with Wansborough's
too. Especially his theories have become "contagious" in certain circles, as one of
this group puts it.
3
In any case, two of the "revisionists" who have apparently
caught severely the contagion of Wansborough's fallacies are ]. Koren and
Yahuda D. Neva and they have set themselves to supplement Wansborough's
theories by archaeological evidence and thus to dismantle the sources of Islamic
history and to prove Islam, Muslims and the Qur'an as non-entities during the
first two centuries of the Hijri era. Koren and Neva postulate as follows:
(a) That it "is necessary to corroborate a view derived solely from the Muslim
literary account" by the "hard facts" of material remains; "and where the two
conflict, the latter should be preferred";
(b) that if there is no evidence for an event outside of the "traditional
account", this should be taken as "positive evidence in support of the hypothesis
that it did not happen."
4
Proceeding from these two postulates Yehuda De Neva argued that
archaeological excavations carried out in the Jordanian desert and the Hijaz have
unearthed a number of Hellenistic, Nabataean, Roman and early Byzantine
1
Ibid p. 3, citing H. C. von Bothmer, " Architekturbilder im Koran:Ein Parchthandschrift der Umayyadenzeit aus dem
Yemen", Pantheon, 45 (1987), pp. 4-20.
2
J. Wansborough, Qur'dnic Studies etc., Oxford, 1977, p. xi; The Sedarian Milieu: Content and Compo.rition of the I.rfamic
S afvation History, Oxford, 1978, p. x.
' Toby Lester, op. cit., p. 55.
4
J. Koren andY. D. Neva," Methodological approaches to Islamic Studies", Der I.rfam, Band 68, Haft. 1, p. 91-92.
remains. They show no signs of local Arab cultures from the sixth and early
seventh centuries, "except for some tumuli in the Jordanian desert ... In particular,
no sixth or seventh century J aihili pagan sites, and no pagan sanctuaries such as
the Muslim sources describe have been found in the Hijaz or indeed anywhere in
the area surveyed. Judging from archaeology, the pagan cults these sources
describe were not a Hijazi phenomenon. Furthermore, the archaeological work
has revealed no trace of Jewish setdement at Medina, Xaybar or Wadi al-Qurra.
Both these points contrast direcdy with the Muslim literary sources' descriptions
of the demographic composition of the pre-Islamic Hijaz." If the Muslim sources
did really "preserve an historical account of sixth and early seventh century Hijazi
society, the archaeological work already done should have revealed at least some
points of correlation with it". On the other hand, excavations carried out in the
Central Negev have revealed some thirty pagan sites showing that "active pagans
must have formed a considerable part of the Negev population right through the
first one and a half centuries of the Muslim era". "These pagan centres correlate
highly with the description of the Jahili pagan sanctuaries in the Muslim literary
sources, especially regarding the topography of the sites and layout of the
buildings. Thus the archaeological evidence indicates that the pagan sanctuaries
described in the Muslim sources did not exist in the J ahili Hijaz, but sanctuaries
strongly resembling them did exist in the Central Negev until soon after the
'Abbasids came to power. This in turn suggests that the accounts of the Jahili
religion in the Hijaz could well be back-projections of a paganism actually known
from later and elsewhere. "
1
Elaborating these views in another article Nevo states that the study of a
number of early Arabic inscriptions from the Negev and elsewhere suggest the
existence of a generic monotheism as well as a Judaeo-Christian environment in
the Negev in the late first and second centuries A.H. "From the fact that the
Qur'an exhibits a 'prophetical' Judaeo-Christianity and the basic class does not,"
writes Nevo, "I conclude that the general Judaeo-Christian sectarian environment
was widespread, including at least one group defined by adherence to a prophet,
whose corpus of logia form the basis of the Qur'an. From the fact that the
Qur'an contains many phrases present in the Muslim inscriptions of the late
second century A. H. and later, but absent from the inscriptions of Hisam's days
I Ibid., pp. 101-102.
or earlier, I would conclude that it was canonized quite late, i. e., after these
phrases had entered the religious vocabulary."
1
Now, Nevo and Koren are wrong in their premise that no Islamic source
material from the first century of Islam or so has survived because there never
existed any. It is simply a reiteration of the Goldziher-Schacht-Wansborough
view about the sources of Islamic history with the exception that, while
Wansborough guards his assumption by stating that it is "tentative and
emphatically provisional", Koren and Nevo take is as an established fact. As
shown above, it is a totally incorrect assumption and is also rejected as such by
the more sober section of the orientalists themselves. And just as the extreme
views of Goldziher, Schacht and Wansborough elicited sharp criticisms from
members of their own rank, so the views of Koren and Nevo have come under
attack by the more reasonable of the orientalists. Thus, for instance, Estelle
Whelan squarely joined issue with them in an article under caption: "Forgotten
Witness: Evidence for the Early Codification of the Qur'an".
2
Simultaneously
Donner also points out that Yehuda Neva's argument is circular. "The absence of
specifically Qur'anic or Muslim phraseology from the generic monotheism of the
earliest Negev texts ... may be taken as evidence for late codification of the Qur'an
only if we knew that the Qur'anic texts crystallized in this region (i. e., the Negev,
or at least geographical Syria) rather than somewhere else, such as Arabia; but the
crystallization of the Qur'an outside Arabia is merely another of Neva's (and
Wansborough's) assumptions, not a known fact."
3
Estelle Whelan is more decisive in her refutation of De Neva's assumption.
She points out three kinds of historical evidence showing the early codification of
the Qur'an, namely, the Umayyad inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock,
Al-Walid's inscription at the Great Mosque of Madina and the information about
the existence of a group of Qur'an copyists at Madina since the middle of the first
century of Islam.
4
There are two long inscriptions in blue-and-gold glass mosaic, encircling
respectively the inner and outer faces of the octagonal arcade of the Dome. They
were executed in 72/691-92 by Khalifa 'Abd al-Malik and they are still preserved
in their entirety except for the substitution of the name of the 'Abbasid
al-Ma'mun (198-218/813-33), who did not however, change the foundation date,
1
Y. D. Nevo, ''Towards a pre-history of Islam", Jeru.ralem Studie.r in Ambit and I.rlam, Vol. 17, 1994, pp. 125-126.
2
Journal oftbe American Oriental Society, Vol. 118, No. 1, 1998, pp.
3
Donner, op. tit., p. 62
4
Estelle Whelan, op. cit., Journal oj"tbe American Oriental Society, Vol. 118, No. 1, 1988, pp. 1-14.
"which thus ensures that the inscriptions were actually executed in the reign of
'Abd al-Malik." Both the inscriptions begin on the south side of the octagon and
they contain the shahtzdah, "in the same form in which it appears on the reform
coinage of 'Abd al-Malik introduced five years later, and is followed by a series of
excerpts from different parts of the Qur'an as it is now constituted." The minor
textual variations noticeable in the inscriptions, points out Whelan, were clearly
introduced to fit the sense. "Such alteration of the standard Qur'anic text in order
to express a particular theme seems always to have been acceptable in Islamic
inscriptions, however rigidly the actual recitation of the Qur'an may have been
regulated". Even inscriptions of much later dates embody such variations.
1
One
may add that such use of Qur'anic phrases and passages in writings and
with necessary modifications as are required by the context and theme, has always
been the practice of Muslims in speeches, sermons and writings; and it is intended
to give weight and classical literary styles to the themes presented. Such sermons
and writings presuppose the familiarity of the audience and readers with the
Qur'anic text and they are never intended to be understood as the Qur'an. Had
the codification of the Qur'an taken place in the reign of 'Abd al-Malik or later,
rightly points out Whelan, it is difficult to believe that the arrangement of the
passages as they appear in the Dome of the Rock inscriptions would not have
influenced the "canonical" arrangement. "It seems particularly unlikely that the
combination of phrases from 64:1 and 57:2, repeated twice, could originally have
been a unitary statement that was then 'deconstructed' and incorporated into
different parts of the Qur'an."
2
In this connection Whelan points out the mistake of P. Crone and M. Cook
3
in questioning the value of the mosaic inscriptions of the Dome of the Rock as
evidence for the "literary" form of the text of the Qur'an as a whole at that early
date. They are particularly mistaken in thinking that there is an "extensive
deviance " from the text of these inscriptions in the texts of two copper plaques
on the exterior faces of the lintels over the inner doors in the easterp and
northern entrances respectively. "Closer scrutiny of the two copper plaques",
states Whelan, " suggests that the question is not one of 'extensive deviance';
rather, the one inscription is not primarily Qur'anic in character, and the other is a
combination of Qur'anic fragments and paraphrases that makes sense ... " They
I Ibid., p. 6.
' Ibid.
' Here Whelan refers toP. Crone and M. Cook, Hagarirm: The Making of the I.rlamit World, Cambridge, 1977, pp.18,; 167, n.
18.
"belong to a tradition of using Qur'anic and other familiar phrases, paraphrases,
and allusions in persuasive messages ... " There has been "throughout the history of
Islam" a concern for preserving the integrity of the Qur'anic text, " but side by
side with that concern there has been a tradition of drawing upon and modifying
that text for a variety of rhetorical purposes... The tradition was, however,
dependent upon recognition of the text by the listeners, or readers - a strong
indication that the Qur'an was already the common property of the community in
the last decade of the seventh century."
1
There are many instances of such
creative use of familiar Qur'anic phrases and passages in documents, inscriptions
and literary works. The brief Qur'anic passages on Umayyad coins issued from
77/697 to the end of the dynasty in 132/7 50 are additional examples of such use.
The passages on these coins include 112:1-4 and part of 9:33. "In parallel to the
contemporary inscriptions at the Dome of the Rock these extracts are clearly
intended to declare the primacy of the new religion of Islam ... "
2
The second piece of evidence relating to the form of the Qur'anic text to
which Whelan draws attention is the inscription on the qiblah wall of the
Prophet's Mosque at Madina, "long since lost but observed and described by Abu
'Ali Ibn Rustah during the pilgrimage of 290/903."
3
The inscription extended
from Bab Marwan (Bab ai-Sa/am) in the western wall around the southwestern
corner and across the qiblah wall, then around the southeastern corner to Bab
fibril It consisted of siirah 1 (ai-Fatipah) and siirahs 91-114 ( al-shams to ai-Nas). Ibn
Rustah's account is corroborated by the eyewitness account of an anonymous
Spanish traveller who mentions that it was written in five lines of gold on a blue
ground contained within a marble panel. It was "thus probably executed in
gold-and-blue glass mosaic, as at the Dome of the Rock ... Another parallel to the
Dome of the Rock was the inscription's characters, described as squat and thick,
in a stroke the width of a finger." It was executed during the reconstruction of the
Mosque between 88/706 and 91/710 by 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz, then Khalifah
Al-Walid's governor of Madina. Because of this early date, observes Whelan, this
inscription is particularly significant, for "it suggests that the sequence of the
Qur'anic text from siirahs 91 to 114 had already been established by 91/710."
Also, "the clustering of the short siirahs in this sequence probably means that the
arrangement of the entire Qur'an generally in the order of the length of the siirahs
1
Estelle Whelan, op. cit., pp. 6, 7, 8.
2
Ibid., p. 8.
' Ibid, citing Ibn Rustah, Kitdb al-a'ldq al-najlrah, ed. M. J. de Goeje, Leiden, 1892; reprinted Leiden, 1967, p. 70.
had already been adopted .... 'Umar b. 'Abd al-'Aziz, the one Umayyad whose
piety was respected even by the 'Abbasid enemies of his family, is unlikely to have
admitted anything but the officially recognized version of the Qur'anic text" .
1
A
study of the reports of Ibn Rustah and others suggests that there had been an
inscription of Al-Walid on the southern facade of the courtyard which the
Kharijites destroyed in 130/747. Also the fifteenth century historian al-Samhudi
cites al-Waqidi and Ibn Zabalah to the effect that there were inscriptions inside
and outside and on the doors of the mosque.
2
"The expression of political claims
through Qur'anic quotations and allusions suggests wide familiarity with these
verses and their implications in the early Islamic community, between 72/691-92
and 132/750. In fact, ... there is abundant evidence from the Umayyad period that
it [the Qur'anic text] was already sufficiently familiar to the community at large to
provide easily recognizable claims to political legitimation and for religious
propaganda. "
3
The third item of evidence adduced by Whelan is the multiplicity of references
pointing to the existence of a group of professional Qur'an copyists at Madina
since the very middle of the first century of Islam and to a specific area of the city
where manuscripts of the Qur'an were copied and sold.
4
Madina functioned as an
Islamic intellectual centre in the Umayyad period before the rise of the cities in
Iraq and there had been sufficient demand for the newly codified scripture,
"both for public use in mosques and schools and for private study" to ensure
employment for such a group. The references are so scattered in texts so different
in character and period, and they are so peripheral to the main accounts and the
individuals so insignificant that it is hard to conceive that they have been part of a
pious forgery concocted at the end of the eighth century. "All point to the active
production of copies of the Qur'an from the late seventh century, coinciding with
and confirming the inscriptional evidence of the established text itself. In fact,
from the time of Mu'awiyyah through the reign of al-Walid the Umayyad caliphs
were actively engaged in codifying every aspect of Muslim religious practice.
Mu'awiyah turned Muhammad's minbar into a symbol of authority and ordered
the construction of maq!urahs in the major congregational mosques. 'Abd al-Malik
made sophisticated use of Qur'anic quotations, on coinage and public
monuments, to announce the new Islamic world order. Al-Walid gave
1
Whelan, op.tit., p. 9
2
Ibid, citing Al-Samhudi, Wa[tl' ai-WafJ bi Ddrai-Mu.r{aja, ed. M. M. 'Abd al-f;Iamld, Cairo, Vol. I, p. 371.
' Whalan, op.tit. p. 10.
4
Ibid, pp. 10-12.
monumental form to the Muslim house of worship and the service conducted in
it. It seems beyond the bounds of credibility that such efforts would have
preceded interest in codifying the text itself. The different types of evidence cited
here all thus lead to the conclusion that the Muslim tradition is reliable, at least in
broad outline, in attributing the first codification of the Qur'anic text to 'Uthman
and his appointed commission. The Qur'an was available to his successors as an
instrument to help weld the diverse peoples of the rapidly expanding empire into
a relatively unified polity. "
1
De Nevo is thus wrong in his assumptions, based on his interpretations of the
Negev inscriptions and on the ideas of Schacht and Wansborough about the
Qur'an and Islamic history in general. Apart from the points made by Donner
and Whelan, however, there are a number of other weakness and fallacies in the
Koren-Nevo assumption. First, the dogmatic assertion that the absence of
corroborative evidence for information about an event derived from Islamic
sources has to be taken as "positive evidence in support of the hypothesis that it
did not happen" is a wrong and a seriously misleading methodology. Such a
methodology is not suitable even in respect of many an event in modern and
contemporary history, not to speak of ancient and pre-modern times, for which
one has often to depend on solitary and not quite contemporary evidence. Many
of the biblical narratives were written thousands of years after the events they
describe, depending on the "collective memory" of the society; and many of them
have no corroborative evidence whatsoever. So is the case with the early annals
of Greece and Rome. Yet, no sober historian will reject them as non-events
simply because there is no corroborative evidence.
Second, Nevo says that because excavations so far carried out have not
revealed in the Hijaz any pagan site of the sort described in the Muslim sources,
whereas some thirty such pagan sites have been discovered in the Central Negev,
"the accounts of the Jihili religion in the Hijaz could well be projection_s of a
paganism known from later and elsewhere." The assumption is based on a
number of fallacies. (a) It assumes that all necessary excavations have been carried
out in Arabia and nothing more remains to be done. This is not at all the case.
(b) It fails to recognize that idols and idolatrous shrines were more thoroughly
destroyed in the Hijaz after the establishment of Islam there than in other regions
which came gradually under the fold of Islam. (c) It .fails to understand the origin
I Ibid, PP 12-13.
and nature of idolatrous practices and shrines existing in the Hijaz prior to the
rise of Islam. (d) It fails to understand the nature of the rise of Islam and assumes
that it rose merely as a reaction to paganism in Arabia. Finally, (e) it fails to see
the implications of the assumption of back-projection which raises more
questions than it solves.
The last three points may be elaborated a little. Polytheism and idolatry were
not indigenous to the Isma'ilite Arabs of Hijaz and Arabia. It was introduced
among them long after the time of Prophet Isma'il, peace be on him. According
to authentic reports, idolatry was introduced at Makka after its occupation by
Banu Khuza'ah, particularly by their leader 'Amr ibn Lul;layy.
1
Ibn IsQ.aq informs
us that 'Amr once went to Syria where he observed the people worshipping
idols. He enquired of the reasons for their doing so; and as they informed him
that the idols bestowed on them many advantages he purchased from them the
idol of I;Iubal which he brought to Makka, placed it near the Ka'ba and asked his
people to worship it. As they considered him their leader and wise mat:! they
started worshipping the idol.
2
According to another report 'Amr ibn Luhayy
introduced also the worship of the images of Wadd, YaghUth, Ya'uq and
Nasf} the gods of Prophet Nub's unbelieving people.
3
These represented certain
cults relating to astral worship or deification of the forces of nature and they were
prevalent in ancient Assyria and Babylonia (Iraq), the land of Nul)'s people, as the
Qur'an clearly states.
4
It is thus clear that idolatry was exogenous to the Isma'ilite
Arabs. Though it was rather widespread among them on the eve of the rise of
Islam, it was not deep-rooted and as such no elaborate mythology had developed
round them in Arabia as was the case with regard to the idolatry in ancient
Greece, India and Assyria-Babylonia. In fact the Arabic word for idol, fanam, as
one modern scholar points out, "is clearly an adaptation of Aramaic selem. "
5
In
view of this fact, it is no wonder that idolatry was more thoroughly wiped out in
Hijaz after the coming of Islam than was the case with regard to Negev (Syria)
and elsewhere. In fact, far from contradicting the information contained in the
Muslim sources, the Negev archaeological remains do corroborate what the
1
Bukbdrf, nos., 3521, 4623-4624; MuJiim, no. 2856; MuJnaJ, II, 275-276; III, 318, 353, 354; V, 137.
2
Ibn Hisham, AI-Simt ai-Nabawzi'yah, (ed. al-Saqqa and others), Beirut 1391/1971, pp. 78-79; Ibn al-Kalbi, [(jtJb
ai-A.rndm, ed. Ahmad Zaki Pasha, Cairo, 1343/1924, p. 8
' Ibn 1;-lajr, Fatlj ai-Ban: VI, p. 634.
4
Q. 71:23.
' P. K. Hitti, Hirtory of'the Arab.r, 1986 reprint, p. 100, n. 2.
264
classical Muslim accounts say about the import of polytheism into Arabia from
Syria and Iraq.
Neva's assumption proceeds also from a misunderstanding of the nature of
the rise of Islam as merely a reaction to Arabian paganism so that he suggests that
the eighth century Muslims found it necessary to project the paganism found in
the Negev desert back into sixth century Hijaz as justification for the rise of
Islam. The Qur'an does of course reject and disapprove idolatry as it existed in
Arabia, but it does not do only that. It condemns and forbids all sorts of beliefs
and practices that infringe strict monotheism, existing in the world then or now.
Thus it disapproves and forbids the worship of the sun and the moon and other
heavenly bodies.
1
This kind of polytheism was prevalent not only among the
people of Prophet Ibrahim in Iraq; it was prevalent throughout the world from
the east and the west, as the existence of the celebrated Temple of Heaven at
Beijing (China) and the discovery of a number of Sun-Pyramids and
Moon-Pyramids and other pyramids in the south-east Asia through north Africa
to South America unmistakably prove. The Qur'an categorically prohibits the
worship of the sun, the moon, the stars or other natural phenomena like
mountains, trees, rivers or special animals. "Do not make obeisance to the sun
and the moon";
2
"Do you not see that to Allah make obeisance all those who are
in the heavens and the earth, and the sun and the moon and the stars and the
mountains and the trees and the animals?"
3
It also forbids the worship 9f the
clouds, lightning or thunder emphasizing: "He it is Who shows you the lightning
by way of fear and hope, and He produces the heavy clouds. And the thunder
sings His praise and the angels, out of His dread; and He sends forth the
thunderbolts and strikes therewith whomsoever He will. Yet they dispute about
Allah .. "
4
It also prohibits the deification of angels, Prophets and prominent
personalities and worshipping them as gods, as many people did then and still do.
"He does not ask you to take the angels and the Prophets as lords ... "
5
"Verily
those whom you make prayers to besides Allah are created beings like you."
6
It
disapproves and prohibits the practice of the Zoroastrians and others of
worshipping two gods, one of good and the other of evil, or of light and
I Q. 6:76-79.
2
Q. 41:37
' Q. 22:18. See also 13:15; 16:49.
4
Q. 13:12-13.
; Q. 3:80
,, Q. 7:194.
darkness: "Do not take two gods. He is but God the One."
1
"All the praise is due
to Allah Who created the heavens and the earth and made darkness and light. Yet
those who disbelieve set equals to their Lord."
2
The Qur'an is replete with
prohibitions against setting partners with Allah in any form. In the same strain it
decries the practice of attributing sons or daughters to Him, in deifying the
Prophet Jesus and worshipping him as god, the concept of the Trinity, the
practice of some of the Jews in worshipping the golden calf and considering
'Uzayr as son of God, and their tampering in other ways with the scripture given
tothem.
It is on this last score that Wansborough and his followers allege that the
Qur'an is "polemical". The Qur'an is critical not only of Christianity and Judaism,
it is so with regard to every type of polytheism and paganism. The reference to
the specific forms of beliefs and practices show, on the one hand, that these were
the prevalent forms of polytheism and paganism throughout the world at the time
and, on the other, that all these types of polytheism were reflected in some form
or other in the religious scenario of Arabia on the eve of the rise of Islam. The
peculiarity of the situation was that while each of the other regions of the world
was bedevilled by one or the other form of paganism, Arabia seems to have
turned into a museum of all the varieties of paganism. Viewed in this latter
context, one may even appreciate the appropriateness of the coming of the last
Prophet and the Qur'an in Arabia. The background and perspective of the rise of
Islam was as universal and comprehensive as are its message and address.
Because of a failure to understand this nature of the Qur'anic attack on all
types of paganism and polytheism Neva and his co-thinkers err in suggesting that
the later Muslims not only projected the Negev paganism back into the sixth
century Arabia but also borrowed the Judaeo-Christian concept of monotheism
marked by adherence to a Prophet, as prevalent in the Negev region, a n ~ thus
formulated the Qur'an. This suggestion is only an amalgam of the old
Geiger-Muir-Margoliouth theory of the Judaeo-Christian origin of the Qur'an and
Islam on the one hand, and the Schacht-Wansborough assumption of
back-projection of the Islamic traditions and scripture, on the other, grafted on to
what De Neva conceives to be the archaeological and epigraphic evidence against
the Qur' an. The fallacy of the theory of J udaeo-Christian origin of Islam has been
demonstrated earlier.
3
Here it may be pointed out that the Qur'an does not ignore
I Q. 16:51.
2 Q. 6:1.
the existence of Judaism and Christianity. It rather criticises them as deviations
from the original and true monotheism communicated by the previous Prophets.
Indeed the Qur'an does not claim to deliver any new message. It seeks only to
revive and complete the message of monotheism of the previous Prophets,
mentioning specifically that its message is to be found in the original scriptures
given to Ibrahim (Abraham) and Musa (Moses).
2
It also demands belief in all the
previous Prophets, including Ya'qub Gacob), the progenitor of the Children of
Isra'il, and 'Isa Gesus), whom the Christians have deified. The originality of the
Qur'an lies not in its giving out any new message, but in its insistence on the unity
of God, the unity of His message, the unity of His Prophets and Messengers, and
the unity of His creation - mankind - and in its rejection of any concept of His
message and love having been restricted to any particular community and
country. In view of these, how very wrong is the suggestion that it surreptitiously
borrowed Judaeo-Christian concepts and bruited abroad a new religion! The
Qur':in also points out that despite deviations from the pure monotheism
delivered by the previous prophets, and despite persecution by the deviant
groups, small monotheistic groups and isolated individuals persisted here and
there.
3
The Islamic classical accounts also refer to a class of monotheists known
as panfjs existing on the eve of the rise of Islam. Thus the "generic" or "basic
monotheism" which the Negev inscriptions reveal do, far from contradicting the
Islamic accounts, only corroborate their truth and the truth of the Qur'an.
Neva and his mentors also fail to see the implications of the theory of
back-projection. Apart from the utter improbability of fabricating all the different
and divergent facts and incidents relating to persons and events scattered over
different regions and periods, the simple question that presents itself before a
reader is: Why should the 'Abbasid authorities, if they did indeed invent the story
of the Prophet and the Qur'an, have credited a non-Abbasid individual to be the
recipient of the revelation? Also, if the Qur'an was formulated in the region of
Negev, why not Jerusalem, instead of Makka, should have been stated as the
venue of the revelation? The Arabs are, of all people, very sensitive about their
ancestry and ancestors. If the Makkan Quraysh people were not idolaters and
pagans on the eve of the rise of Islam, none of their descendants of the
Umayyads or the 'Abbasids would have tolerated the act of tarnishing their
1
J upra, ch. II.
2
Q. 87:18-19.
' See for instance Q. 85:4-8.
ancestors' memories by falsely imputing idolatry and paganism to them. If the
Jews were not settled at Madina, Khaybar and other places in northern Arabia,
why should there have been any necessity for inventing the stories of the battles
with them? The allegedly fabricated Qur' anic message could as well have been
delivered without having recourse to such stories. But for one thing, Nevo is
seriously mistaken in so categorically stating that there is no material evidence of
the existence of the Jewish settlement at Madina. The remains of the fort (bi.rn) of
Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf, a leader of the Madinan Jews, in the southern periphery of
Madina, is still preserved as an archaeological monument. Incidentally, the Qur'an
very clearly refers to the Jewish forts at Madina.
1
Thus the suggestions of De Nevo, which are only a reiteration and adaptation
of the assumptions advanced by the Wansborough-Crone-Cook trio, are both
unreasonable and untenable. It is in the context of these assumptions, however,
that the discovery of certain Qur'anic manuscripts at the Yamani capital San'a' in
the seventies furnished the ground for fresh speculations.
IV. THE SAN'A' FIND: FRESH SPECULATIONS
In 1972 a stock of old parchments manuscripts containing manuscripts of the
Qur'an was discovered in the loft of the Great Mosque of San'a'. In the early
eighties the Yamani Antiquities Authority, particularly its president Qadi Isma'il
al-Akwa', invited through the German Foreign Ministry two German experts, Dr.
Gerd. R. Puin and H. C. Graf Von Bothmer, for the restoration and preservation
of the manuscripts. They worked at San'a' for some years in this project. It
appears that besides being experts in restoration and preservation of manuscripts
they had "orientalist" motives; for, it is reported that Bothmer made microfilm
copies of some 35,000 sheets of the manuscripts and took them to Germany. In
1987 he wrote an article on these manuscripts mentioning, among other things,
that one of them, no. 1033-32, could be assigned a date in the last quarter of the
first hijrf century. More orientalist in nature was however the article which Puin
wrote under tide: "Observations on Early Qur'an Manuscripts in ~ a n ' a " ' .
2
.These
writings attracted the attention of the orientalists to the San'a manuscripts and
they held a seminar at Leiden in 1998 on "Qur'anic Studies" at which both
Bothmer and Puin delivered lectures on the ~ a n ' a ' manuscripts.
1
Q. 59:2
2
Published in Stefan Wilde (ed.), The.Qur'dn a.r Text, E. J. Brill, Leiden, 1966, pp. 107-111.
It is not known what exactly they said there on the subject; but the above
mentioned article of Puin clearly shows his intentions and conclusions on the
subject. In the main he stresses three things in the article. First, he refers to the
attempts made previously by the orientalists like Jeffery Arthur, Otto Pretzel.
Antony Spitaler and A. Fischer to collect the existing manuscripts of the Qur'an
in order to prepare what they call a revised version by comparing any differences
in them and regretfully mentions that the very large number of manuscripts
collected for the purpose at the University of Munich, Germany, were destroyed
by bombing during the Second World War. He then expresses the hope that the
San'a' find offers an opportunity to resume that project of work.
1
Second, he
mentions what he has been able to note the "discrepancies" in the ~ a n ' a '
manuscripts and says: (a) In a number of manuscripts the letter 'a/if (hamzah) is
written in an incorrect way; (b) there are some differences in the numbering of
'qyahs in some surahs and (c) in two or three sheets he has found surahs written
not in the order as found in the Qur'an in circulation.
2
Third, he recognizes that
these "discrepancies" are minor and they would not probably lead to any sudden
and significant advance in the field of Qur'anic studies. Nonetheless he asserts
that the Qur'an, though it claims to be "clear" (mubn ) is not so and that the
existence of the above mentioned "discrepancies" show that the surahs of the
Qur'an were not written down in their final form during the lifetime of the
Prophet and that it is probable that a Qur'an with a different order of the surahs
was in circulation for a long time.
3
It must at once be pointed out that these statements and conclusions are
clearly far-fetched and totally untenable. Before discussing this, however, it is
necessary to point out that this writing of Puin (and also of Bothmer) gave rise to
wide-spread and wild speculations in the orientalist circles if only because these
fell on ready and willing ears. One of the orientalist writers, Toby Lester, held
telephonic conversations with Puin
4
on the subject and then put forth an article in
the January 1999 issue of the Atlantic Month!J under caption: "What is the
Qur'an?".
5
The article is made up of three types of materials: (a) information
about the San'a'find and the conclusions said to have been arrived at by Puin and
I Ibid., p. 107.
2
Ibid., p. 108-110.
' Ibid., pp. 108, 111.
4
See Puin's letter to Qaqi Isma'il al-Akwa', dated 14. 2.1999, reproduced in Impact International, Vol. 30, Mrach 2000, p.
27.
' Tbe Atlantic Montb!J, January 1999, pp. 43-56.
Bothmer; (b) assumptions of the other orientalists like Wansborough, Cook,
Crone, Nevo and J. A. Bellamy about the Qur'an and (c) indications about what
the orientalists are doing or propose to do in the field of Qur'anic studies.
As regards the San'a' manuscripts Toby Lester inflates and reiterates the views
of Puin and says that according to him the Qur'an came into being through a
process of evolution over a long period; that it is a not a book sent down from
the heaven on the Prophet in the seventh Christian century; that it is not "clear"
(mubtn) as it claims to be, every fifth of its 'qyahs being either unintelligible or
inexplicable and that there are instances of palimpsests or overwriting of some
words or expressions in some sheets of the manuscripts. Lester further alleges
that the Y amani authorities are unwilling to allow detailed study of the
manuscripts for fear of causing uneasiness in the Islamic world but, nonetheless,
these manuscripts will help the orientalists in proving that the Qur'an has a
"history" just as the Bible has a "history". As regards the assumptions of the other
orientalists like Wansborough, Cook and Crone Lester sums up their views as
already noted. Regarding the statements of J. A. Bellamy, we shall presently notice
them.
This article of Toby Lester, more than the articles of Puin and Bothmer,
caused a wave of protests and anger against the Y amani authorities' handling of
the manuscripts which in turn led Puin and Bothmer to fear that their
relationship with the latter would be adversely affected. Hence each of them
hurried to write a letter to Qadi Isma'il al-Akwa' to clarify their position. In his
letter Puin defended himself as well as his colleague Bothmer and denied having
said that there was among the manuscripts a different Qur'an than the one
currently in circulation, that there was no basis of truth for what the American
journal had alleged about their researches about the Qur'an and that the press
campaign was intended to harm the academic relationship between them and the
Y amani authorities.
1
This defence of Puin is in fact a mere twisting and turning of the words and it
does not tally with what he actually says in his article. He says, as we have
noticed, that the Qur'an, though it claims to be "clear" (mubtn) is not so, that the
alleged "discrepancies" show that the surahs of the Qur'an were not written down
in their final form during the lifetime of the Prophet and that it is probable that a
Qur'an with a different order of the surahs was in circulation for a long time.
1
See copy of Puin's letter, reproduced in the Impact International, op.cit.
He also says that the ~ a n ' a ' find offers an opportunity to the orientalists to
resume the work of preparing a revised version of the Qur'an. It is therefore
necessary to discuss briefly the discrepancies and inaccuracies in the statements of
Puin himself.
First, in his reference to the collection of the Qur'anic manuscripts at the
University of Munich and the efforts of the orientalists in that connection Puin
omits to mention a very important fact. It is that, shortly before the outbreak of
the Second World War the authorities in charge of those manuscripts had actually
issued a statement on the basis of their study of them. They had said that a study
and comparison of the manuscripts, though not complete, had not revealed any
discrepancy and difference in the texts except minor spelling mistakes in some
places which was natural and all of which did not, however, affect the correctness
and integrity of the Qur'anic text as a whole.
1
The "discrepancies" in the writing
of 'alif at some places to which Puin refers belongs to this type of error or style in
writing and they do not in any way affect the integrity and correctness of the text
as a whole.
Second, slight difference in the numbering of 'qyahs with regard to some surahs
which Puin notices with regard to a few surahs is quite natural. Such difference in
the numbering of 'qyahs is acknowledged even by some classical Muslim scholars
and it does not affect the text at all. Even the wellknown orientalist Flugel's
numbering of the 'qyahs of some surahs differs slightly from the standard
numbering. Significantly enough, while speaking about the difference in
numbering of 'qyahs Puin does not at all indicate any difference in the text of the
surahs.
Third, palimpsests or overwriting of words or expressions in a few places do
not suggest anything more than correction of mistakes committed in the writing
of the words in the first instance. It cannot be a proof in support of the theory of
revision or evolution of the text unless an earlier copy of the Qur'an containing
different words and expressions in the same places is shown to exist. This has
not been found in the San'a' manuscripts nor shown by any other orientalist to
have ever been in existence.
Fourth, the conclusion that the surahs were not written down in their final
form during the lifetime of the Prophet or that a Qur'an with a different ordering
of the surahs was in circulation for a long time just because two or three sheets
1
See Muhammad Hamidullah, Khutabiit-i-Bhawalpur (Urdu text), Tahqiqat-i-Islami, Islamabad, 1985, pp. 20-21; also
reproduced in the Impact International, March 2000, p. 28.
REVISIONISM AT ITS CLIMAX 271 /
have been found whereon some surahs have been written in a different order, that
is surahs from different places of the Qur'an in circulation have been put together,
is hasty and untenable: It is important to note that it has been the habit of
Muslims since the very beginning to make collection of selected surahs in one
compilation for purposes of study and memorisation, especially by students at
madrasahs. And since mosques were invariably educational institutions, it is not at
all strange that such collection of selected surahs should be found in a stock of
Arabic manuscripts stored in a great mosque. In any case, by the very admission
of Puin, this is confined to two or three manuscript sheets only out of more than
35,000 sheets. Before hazarding such a serious conclusion Puin and his sort
should have got hold of a copy of the Qur'an, or a considerable part of the
Qur'an, showing a different ordering of the surahs than that found in the existing
Qur'an.
Even the existence of a complete copy of the Qur'an with a different order of
the surahs does not ipso facto prove that such a Qur'an prevailed among the
Muslims unless it is proved that it was accepted and acted upon by them at any
given time; for it is well known that for academic and other purposes the Qur'an
has been published from time to time with surahs arranged according to the order
of their revelation. Thus, for instance, A. Rodwell published an English
translation of the Qur'an in 1861 rearranging the surahs according to their order
of publication under caption: The Coran :Translated from the Arabic, the surhas
arranged in chronological order.
1
And early in the twentieth century a Muslim of
Bengal, Mirza Abul Fazl, issued a new translation arranging the surahs according
to the order of their revelation.
2
Similarly Richard Bell made another translation
in the early thirties with what he called a "critical rearrangement of the surahs."
3
It
has also been pointed out that the orientalists aim at preparing and publishing
what they call a revised and corrected edition of the Qur'an. And of late, as Toby
Lester has mentioned in his article, J. A. Bellamy has made this suggestion on the
assumption that he has found a number of "mistakes" in the Qur'an. The
existence of a Qur'an with a different arrangement of the surahs or with what is
called "corrections" and "revisions" cannot be cited as proof that such a Qur'an
has ever been in use among the Muslims.
1
London, Williams and Norgate, 1861.
2
Mirza Abu! Fazl, The Qur'dn, Arabic Text and English Tran.rlation, Arranged Chronologically, 1911 (British Museum Catalogue
no. 1452.d.15).
' R. Bell, The.Quran: Translated with a Critical Rearrangement of the siirah.r, T& T Clark, Edinburgh, 1937.
CHAPTER XI
ON THE TEXT OF THE QUR'AN:
I. THE LANGUAGE AND STILE AND THE THEORY OF REVISION
I. ON 1HE LANGUAGE AND STYLE IN GENERAL
The orientalists' views about the text of the Qur'an are related to their views
about the Qur'anic wa!!J (revelation) itself. Since they think and try to prove that
the Qur'an is the Prophet's own composition they naturally tend to attribute to it
all the conceivable merits and drawbacks associated with human work. As regards
the literary merit and style of language the views of the orientalists veer from
appreciation to depreciation and vice versa.
One of the modern orientalists who expressed a decidedly favourable opinion
about the literary merit of the Qur'an was Dr. William Nassau Lees whom the
British colonial administration in India had appointed, in succession to Dr. Aloys
Sprenger, as Principal of the Calcutta Madrasa, then the premier institution of
Islamic learning in Bengal, in order to transform it into an institution for teaching
Arabic as language and literature by divesting its curricula of the Qur'an and
qadfth.
1
The projected reconstitution of the Madrasa of course elicited sharp but
unsuccessful opposition of the Muslim teachers and students of the institution.
Lees, however, took courage to point out the relevance of studying the Qur'an as
a masterpiece of Arabic language and literature. In a report submitted to the
government in 1855 he wrote:
"In comparison with most of the Arabic works the style and language of the 'Koran' must
certainly be considered not only elegant, but even beautiful. It is highly expressive ... Indeed, in
parts the language is lofty, and in passages where the majesty and grandeur of the D ~ i t y are
described, may be said to approach the sublime. It has been universally allowed by Arabs of all
ages ... to be written with the greatest elegance and in the purest of language, and, as a
composition, incomparable. It is ... the basis upon which the whole system of Arabic grammar has
been constructed, and from it almost all examples have been extracted. It is the test, the
touchstone, by which every composition is tried, the standard to which the language of all must be
applied; nay, it is part and parcel of Arabic literature itself, for, I might almost, without hesitation,
assert that no orthodox Moslem has ever written an Arabic work of any description that did not
contain coundess allusions to and frequent extracts from it, to understand and appreciate which
an intimate knowledge of the 'Book', as it is termed, is undoubtedly required."
2
1
See for an account of the "secularization" of the Calcutta Madrasa by the British colonial administration M. M. Ali,
History of the Muslims of Bengal, Vol. II, Imam Muhammad Islamic University, Riaydh, 1988, chapter VII.
2
Bengal Education Proceedings, 20 September, 1855, no. BOa; also Parliamentary Papm, House of Commons, 1859,
Session II, Paper 186, p. 91.
ON THE LANGUAGE AND STILE OF THE QUR'AN 273
These views of Lees and the Muslims' opposition were of no avail against the
government's policy of secularizing the Madrasa and the whole structure of the
education system. It was in this atmosphere that William Muir's work on the life
of the Prophet appeared in 1858-60. As noted earlier, he stated that the Prophet
gave vent to his ideas in "wild rhapsodical language, enforced often with
incoherent oaths", in "fragments" of poetry and "soliloquy", couched "in words of
rare force and beauty."
1
And this view of the Qur'anic waf.!y was reiterated shortly
afterwards by Noldeke who held that the Prophet gave out "not only the results
of imaginative and emotional excitement, but also many expositions or decrees
which were the outcome of cool calculation, as the word of God."
2
Regarding the
style and language, however, Noldeke struck a different note from that of Muir.
II. N6LDEKE
1
S VIEWS ON THE LANGUAGE AND STILE OF THE QuR' AN
"In point of style, and artistic effect", states Noldeke, "the different parts of
the Koran are of very unequal value". While the older pieces, according to him,
are marked by "a wild force of passion, and a vigorous, if not rich, imagination",
the "greater part of the Koran is decidedly prosaic; much of it indeed is stiff in
style." With "such a variety of material", continues Noldeke, "we cannot expect
every part to be equally vivacious, or imaginative, or poetic ... But Muhammad's
mistake consists in persistent and slavish adherence to the semipoetic form which
he had at first adopted in accordance with his own taste and that of his hearers.
For instance, he employs rhyme in dealing with the most prosaic subjects, and
thus produces the disagreeable effect of incongruity between style and matter."
3
Noldeke further observes that though "scraps of poetical phraseology" are
numerous in the earlier surahs, the Prophet was no "poetic genius". "Hence the
style of the Koran is not poetical but rhetorical; ... The Koran is never metrical,
and only a few exceptionally eloquent portions fall into a sort of spontaneous
rhythm. On the other hand, the rhyme is regularly maintained, although,
specially in the later pieces, after a very slovenly fashion. Rhymed prose
was a favourite form of composition among the Arabs of that day, and
Muhammad adopted it."
4
For the sake of maintaining the rhyme, Noldeke
continues, Muhammad calls Mount Sinai Sinin at 95:2, Elijah (Ilyas) as I!Jasin at
1
Muir, Life eft:, 3rd edition, p. 39. See also .rupra, p.
2
Noldeke's essay on the Qur'an (Koran) in the Emydopedia Britannica, 9th edn., vol. 16, 1891, reproduced in Ibn Warraq,
op.dt., p. 37.
' Ibid., p. 44.
4
Ibid., p. 45. The highlighting of certain lines is by the present writer.
37:130, fixes "the unusual number of angels round the throne of God" as eight,
thamdn!Jah (69:17), because it falls in with the rhyme, and speaks of two gardens
(jannatdn), two fountains ('qyndn) and two kinds of fruits (zawjdn) in surah 55
"simply because the dual termination (an) corresponds to the syllable that controls
the rhyme in that whole sura." In the later pieces the Prophet is also said to have
inserted "edifying remarks, entirely out of keeping with the context, merely to
complete his rhyme". Noldeke then concludes these remarks by saying: "In
Arabic it is such an easy thing to accumulate masses of words with the same
termination, that the gross negligence of the rhyme in the Koran is doubly
remarkable. One may say that this is another mark of the Prophet's want of
mental training, and incapacity for introspective criticism. "
1
Now, it is indeed "doubly remarkable" that Noldeke is so conspicuously
inconsistent in his statements here; for he has been emphasizing in his whole
paragraph that the Prophet's predominant aim was to maintain the rhyme, even
after a "slovenly fashion" in the "later pieces" of the Qur'an, and then ends up by
saying that because in Arabic it was easy to accumulate masses of words with the
same termination, "the gross negligence of the rhyme in the Koran" is indicative
of the Prophet's lack of "mental training" and capacity "for introspective
criticism." One wonders if the description is not more appropriately applicable to
Noldeke himself. In fact he commits a series of inconsistencies but fails to see
them. Thus he says, as noted above, that rhymed prose was a favourite form of
composition among the Arabs of that day and the Prophet adopted it; then, in the
very following paragraph of his essay Noldeke tells his readers that "a prose style
did not exist" among the Arabs at that time, that Mu]:lammad's "book", i. e., the
Qur'an, "is the first prose work", and hence it "testifies to the awkwardness of the
beginner"
2
, i. e., the semipoetic nature of the composition. Thus would Noldeke
want his readers to take from him in the same breath that "rhymed prose" was the
order of the day; but no, "a prose style did not exist"; that the Prophet adopted
the existing rhymed prose style; but no, his was the "first prose work"; that the
Prophet regularly maintained the rhyme in the Qur'an; but no, there is "gross
negligence of the rhyme in the Koran." Again, Noldeke states that the Prophet
was no poetic genius and notes that he disclaimed the epithet of "poet" given him
by his community, yet it is stated that "Muhammad's mistake consists in persistent
and slavish adherence to the semipoetic form which he had at first adopted in
I Ibid.
2
Ibid., p. 47.
ON THE LANGUAGE AND STYLE OF THE QUR'AN 275
accordance with his own taste and that of his hearers." A consistent reasoning
would have led to the inevitable conclusion that since the Prophet disclaimed
being a poet, he would not of have persisted in "slavish adherence to the
semipoetic form".
Noldeke's inconsistent remarks proceed from his fundamental
misunderstanding that the Qur'an is the Prophet's own composition. Noldeke is
also wrong in saying that in order to maintain the rhyme the Prophet went out of
context or employed unusual expressions. The instances cited by him in this
connection do not bear out his contention. Thus he says that the Prophet had
recourse to the dual termination an in some 'qyahs of surah 55 in order to maintain
the rhyme with the refrain (Noldeke calls it syllable): fa bi-'qyyi 'dld'i rabbikumd
tukadhdhibdn L>Y ); but if one goes carefully through the surah one
will find that this is not always the case. Thus its 'qyah 15 ends with the word
al-ndr (}.JI ), though it is immediately followed by the refrain in 'qyah 16. Similarly
its qyahs 24, 27, 41 and 72 end respectively with the words al-'a'ldm ((Y.s\11 );
al-'ikrdm ( rl..f'11), al-'aqdam (ri..U\11 ) and al-khfydm (rl,>JI ), though each of them is
followed by the same refrain. Again, with regard to 69:17 it is not simply to
conform to the rhyme that the Prophet put the number of angels as eight
(thamdnfyah). Noldeke does not, and cannot, say what should be the correct
number and why should the number eight be unusual. If rhyme was the prime
consideration, the number thalathah would equally have met the requirement of
the rhyme. It is to be noted that the terminating word of 'qyah 14 of the surah is
wahidah (one). Nor do all the 'qyahs of the surah conform to the same or similar
rhyme, ah. Thus the terminating words of its consecutive 'qyahs 33, 34, 35 and 36
are respectively ), al-miskfn ( hamfm ( andghislfn ).
Again, it is not at all just for the sake of rhyme that Mount Sinai is called sfnfn
at 95:2; for it follows the first 'qyah which terminates with the word zqytun. And
although the 'qyah 3 ends with the word al-'amfn which rhymes with sfnfn, it is the
former word, a/- 'amfn, which might be said to conform to its previous word in
rhyme, not that the first word was chosen to agree with the following word in
rhyme. It is also to be noted that the succeeding 'qyahs 4, 5 and 6 terminate
respectively with words very dissimilar in rhyme, namely, taqwfm ), sdjilfn
and mamnun (0_,.:.-- ).
Similarly Ifyasfn at 37:130 is not a distortion of the name Ifyas for the sake of
rhyme. As the commentators point out, it is another name for Ilyas; just as sfnfn is
another name for Mount Sinai which is mentioned in the Qur'an as simply Tur
(52:1) or as TurSaind' (23:23).
1
There is also an opinion that Ifydstn is the lightened
form (mukhaffafah) of the plural relative of Ilyas, meaning his believing followers.
2
For one thing; there was no absolute need for distorting the name of Ilyas for
meeting the requirement of rhyme; for, that requirement could easily have been
met by simply adding an adjective like al- 'amfn to the name Ifyds, without having
recourse to the questionable method of distorting his name. Also, in several
previous 'qyahs of the same surah such distortion is not resorted to for the sake of
rhyme. Thus 'qyah 109 terminates with "Ibrahim" but its following 'qyah
terminates with the same word al-muhsintn, which is the terminating word for the
'qyah 131. Similarly 'qyah 120 terminates with Hartin and its succeeding one with
the same al-muhsinfn. It may also be noted that several consecutive 'qyahs after
'qyah 130 have very dissimilar terminations. Thus 'qyahs 138, 139, 140, 141, 142,
143, 144, 145, 146 and 147 terminate respectively with ta'qiluna (.:>_,.L.W ), al-mursaltn
(.:,.::L _rll ), al-mash-pun ( al-mutf-l{atftn multm ), (
( saqfm ( andyaifduna ( 0J-4Y-) It may
further be pointed out that in none of the instances cited by Noldeke to support
his contention has any departure been made from the theme and context, as he
insinuates. The Qur'anic text has of course its unique rhyme and rhythm, but
nowhere is the theme or context sacrificed for the sake of rhyme. Nor is rhyme a
constant feature with all the Qur'anic surahs or passages. To state on the basis of
some ill-understood expressions and phrases that the Prophet committed the
mistake of persisting in slavish adherence to semipoetic form and sacrificed
context and the continuity of thought, indiscriminately employed an arbitrary
figure for the number of angels around God's Throne, and even distorted the
name of a Prophet, just for the sake of meeting the requirement of rhyme, is a
generalization both rash and wrong.
Besides the above, Noldeke makes other remarks about the text of the Qur'an.
He says that though "the older pieces" are characterised by a force and vigour of
imagination and that in other places also "the style is sometimes lively and
impressive", the "greater part of the Koran is decidedly prosaic, much of it is
indeed stiff in style." Even "anacolutha" (want of syntactical sequences) are of
frequent occurrences.
3
He also thinks that in many surahs the connections of
1
See Al-Tabari, Ta[rfr, Pt. 23, pp. 95-96.
2
See Al-Zajjaj, Ma'dniai-Qur'dn wa 'I'rdbuhu, (ed. 'Abd al-Jalil 'Abduhu ShalbD, vol. IV, Beirut, 1988, p. 312; Abu ljayyan
al-Andalusi, AI-Ba9rai-Mutlf(, vol. IX, Makka, n. d., pp. 122-123.
' Ibid., p. 44.
thought are interrupted, there are abrupt changes of subjects and frequent
omissions of clauses that "are almost indispensable."
1
As regards the stories of the
Prophets, Noldeke says that links in the sequence of events are omitted" and
"nowhere do we find a steady advance in the narration".
2
He further states that
the stories of the Prophets "are almost in every case facsimiles of Muhammad
himself. They preach exactly like him", and their opponents behave exactly as the
unbelieving inhabitants of Mecca. The Koran even goes so far as to make Noah
contend against the worship of certain false gods, mentioned by name, who were
worshipped by the Arabs of Muhammad's time. In an address put in the mouth
of Abraham (xxvi.75 sqq.) the reader quite forgets that it is Abraham, and not
Muhammad ... who is speaking."
3
As regards the view of the Arab Muslims, "who
knew Arabic infinitely better than the most accomplished European Arabist will
ever do", that the Qur'an is "the most perfect model of style and language",
Noldeke considers it startling and a part of their dogma. He also disposes of the
challenge of the Qur'an for anyone to produce even one surah like those in it by
saying that revelations of the kind which the Prophet uttered, "no unbeliever
could produce without making himself a laughingstock. ... To compose such
revelations ... required either a prophet or a shameless impostor. And if such a
character appeared after Muhammad, still he could never be anything but an
imitator, like the false prophets who arose about the time of his death and
afterward. "
4
The way Noldeke thus disposes of the inimitable nature of the Qur'anic
language and style is indicative only of his prejudice. It is a misleading plea to say
that the false prophets who had come forward with their rival compositions were
dismissed simply as imitators or impostors without due consideration being given
to their compositions. Such was not at all the case. Samples of these
compositions are preserved. They were considered by knowledgeable persons to
whom these were presented and who rejected them as fakes.
5
It will not require
any great knowledge of Arabic to see the absurdity of these compositions. Also,
the Qur'an's challenge was not limited to the time of the Prophet or his
immediately succeeding generation. It is open still today; and nothing comparable
to the Qur'an in language and style has ever been advanced. The Arab Muslims
I Ibid., p. 38.
' Ibid., p. 46.
' Ibid., 42.
' Ibid., pp. 46-47.
' See Ibn Kathir, Af-Biddyah wa a!-Nihdyab, Pt. VI, Beirut, 1986, p. 331.
who, by Noldeke's own admission know Arabic far better than any European
Arabist, consider the Qur'an inimitable not as a matter of dogmatic faith but as a
matter of fact and knowledge. But Noldeke's lack of understanding is all the more
clear from what he says about the Prophetic stories. In saying that the previous
Prophets are presented as "facsimiles" of Muhammad Noldeke simply misses the
point that the Qur'an emphasizes the fact that God's message has all along been
the same - that of monotheism )- that all the Prophets preached the same
message and all of them had to face similar objections and opposition. He is also
grossly mistaken in supposing that the false gods, Wadd, Suwa' and Nasr,
mentioned in connection with Nuh's preaching (71:23) were the ones worshipped
by the Arabs of Muq.ammad's time. It is very clear from the statement put in the
mouth of Nuq. that he is speaking about how his unbelieving people had been
clinging to their false gods who are named. History and traditions also mention
that these were the gods worshipped by Nuq.'s people.
1
Noldeke simply
misunderstands or misinterprets the 'qyah, besides misunderstanding the nature
and purpose of the Prophetic stories in the Qur'an.
In fact it is this failure to understand the basic and predominant theme of the
Qur'an, the message of taw#fl, that makes Noldeke also think that there are
interruptions in links in the Prophetic stories, sudden changes of subjects or
departures from the contexts in other places. The entire Qur'an, its surahs and
passages all revolve round the basic and predominant theme of monotheism
(taw#d). They either bring home the theme of the absolute unity of Allah (God)
as the Creator, Sustainer, Lord and Controller of all created beings and objects, or
empahsize the duty to worship Him Alone, to obey His guidance and commands,
to conduct individual and collective life according to His directives, or to point
out the consequences of disobedience to Him and the rewards for belief in and
obedience to Him, to shun all shades of polytheism and worship of created
beings, to stress individual responsibility and accountability to Him on the Day of
Judgement and the eternity of the life in the hereafter. The Prophetic stories are
again and again recalled simply to illustrate the unity and continuity of Allah's
message throughout the ages, not to tell stories as such or to amuse, as Noldeke
so naively asserts.
2
His view that the greater part of the Qur'an is "decidedly
prosaic" and "stiff in style" proceeds from the same lack of understanding of the
main theme and message of it.
1
See Al-Tabari, Tajjfr, pt. XXIX, pp. 98-100.
2
"Other are intended rather for amusement", says NO!deke. Ibn Warraq, op.dt., p. 42.
As already pointed out, this view of the language and style of the Qur'an is not
shared by all the orientalists, though some of them adopt Noldeke's view. One of
the later orientalists who definitely differs from his view in this regard is Arthur J.
Arberry. In the introduction to his The Koran Interpreted he describes the Qur'an as
"the supreme classic of Arabic literature" and states: "I have been at pains to
study the intricate and richly varied rhythms which - apart from the message
itself - constitute the Koran's undeniable claim to rank amongst the greatest
literary masterpieces of mankind." He further says that the Qur'an is "neither
prose nor poetry, but a unique fusion of both" and that the rhythms "vary
sensibly according to the subject-matter."
1
He also draws attention to t h ~ basic
message and theme of the Qur'an and points out that in many of its passages it is
stated that it is sent down "confirming what was before it", whereby the Torah
and the Gospel are meant, "excepting such falsifications as had been introduced
into them". "All truth was thus present simultaneously within the Prophet's
enraptured soul." If this fact is recognized and remembered, he stresses, the
apparently sudden fluctuations of theme and mood which bewilder "critics
ambitious to measure" the ocean of Qur'an's eloquence "with the thimble of
pedestrian analysis" will cease to present any difficulty. Each sura will then "be
seen to be a unity within itself, and the whole Koran will be recognized as a single
revelation, self-consistent to the highest degree. "
2
III. THE BELL-WATT ExTENSION TO Now EKE's AssuMPTIONs:
THE THEORY OF REVISION
While speaking about what he thinks to be breaks in the connection of
thought and abrupt changes in subjects and holding that "many pieces of the long
suras have to be severed out as originally independent", Noldeke at the same time
sounds a note of warning saying: " We must be aware of carrying this sifting
operation too far - as I now believe myself to have done in my earlier works, and
as Sprenger in his great book on Muhammad also sometimes seems to do." He
further states that since we can observe "how readily the Koran passes from one
subject to another" we "are not at liberty, therefore, in every case where the
connection in the Koran is obscure, to say that it is really broken, and set it down
as the clumsy patchwork of a later hand."
3
Also, while speaking about the dating
1
A.J. Arberry, The Koran Interpreted, The World's Classics, Oxford University Press, 1983, Introduction, p. x.
2
Ibid., p. xi.
' Ibn Warraq, op.dt. p. 38.
of the different passages he hints at another possible faulty outcome of such an
undertaking and says: "we might indeed endeavour to trace the psychological
development of the Prophet by means of the Koran, and arrange its parts
accordingly. But in such an undertaking one is apt to take subjective assumptions
or mere fancies for established data.''
1
These two hints of Noldeke, however, appears to have worked just the
opposite of what was intended by him. For, many of the subsequent orientalists
have taken up these two hints to prove, on the one hand, that each of the
Qur'anic passages which seems to represent to them a unit of thought was in
itself originally an independent unit of revelation, and, on the other, that the
gradual development in the Prophet's "ideas" may be traced by systematically
dating such passages. Even A. J. Arberry, who has otherwise a very favourable
opinion about the integrity of the Qur'anic text and its language style, seems to
have been influenced by the view that a passage which contains a supposed unit
of thought was originally an independent unit of revelation. Thus in his
translation of the Qur'an he arranges the consecutive 'qyahs of each surah in
"shorter or longer sequences". "I have striven to devise rhythmic patterns and
sequence-groupings", says he, "in correspondence with what the Arabic presents,
paragraphing the grouped sequences as they seem to form original units of
revelation. "
2
In arranging what he calls "grouped sequences" of the 'qyahs in separate
paragraphs Arberry has not of course broken the surahs or their orders; but it
needs to be pointed out that the concept of "original units of revelation" based
on what is supposed to be a unit of thought or a specific subject-matter is in itself
wrong on two main grounds. First, it goes far beyond the evidence provided by
the sources which of course speak of the different surahs and of even different
passages of some surahs coming down on different "occasions." But it is very clear
from the accounts in the sources that many of even the long surahs were
"revealed" in whole at a time and that the passages of long or short surahs that are
mentioned as having been "revealed" at different times did not in fact each deal
with one "specific subject" or "thought" as they are conceived by the orientalists.
And this brings us to the second fault in their concept. For, in general, their view
of breaks in thought or subject matter in the Qur'anic text is an outcome of their
lack of understanding of the predominant theme of the Qur'an, .fawf?td
I Ibid., p. 50.
2
A. J. Arberry, Tbe Komn Interpreted, op. cit., Introduction, p. x.
ON TilE LANGUAGE AND STILE OF THE QUR'AN 281
(monotheism), round which each and every of its passages and surahs revolves.
Thus when a passage gives some account of paradise or hell it does not simply
describe a beautiful or horrible place but in fact it draws attention to the duty of
obeying Allah and the consequences of doing so or not doing so. Or, if a
description of paradise or hell is immediately followed by a description of the
power and bounties of Allah as Creator and Lord, the purpose is to bring home
the theme of monotheism and the duty to believe in Him and His message of the
life in the hereafter; for if there is no belief in Him there cannot be any belief in
the hereafter. Again, if a passage describes the sufferings of a group of believing
people in the past, such as the "inmates of the Cave", it does not simply tell a tale
so that one should expect all the details, the climax and anti-climax of the story. It
brings in the narrative to illustrate how some people bore all sufferings for the
sake of their faith in One Alone God and to encourage such believers to
persevere in their faith in the face of all hazards. It is for the same reason that the
struggles of and difficulties encountered by past Prophets and Messengers are
referred to, often in short and incisive allusions. In fact, the way the Qur'an
makes references to them shows that the immediate audience to whom these
were addressed were very much aware of at least the general outline of the stories
of these past prophets and peoples; for, otherwise, this audience would have
been quite impervious to its message, which was not at all the case. In fact if one
keeps this fact in mind, one would be inclined even to revise the generally held
opinion that the Arabs to whom the Qur'an was delivered were a sort of people
not knowledgeable and isolated in their own surroundings.
Of those who have built upon and exaggerated Noldeke's assumptions,
disregarding his notes of warning, the most remarkable are Richard Bell and his
pupil W. Montgomery Watt. They have not only carried to the extreme the
dating of the Qur'anic passages on the basis of what is supposed to be the unity
of subject and thought, and traced what is supposed to be the gradual evolution
of the Prophet's ideas and of Islam, but have even propounded a theory of
revision of the Qur'an texts from time to time by the Prophet.
Working on the two basic but erroneous assumptions that (a) the normal unit
of revelation was a short passage and (b) that the Prophet "revised" the texts
before combining them into surahs, Bell classifies the Qur'anic passages into
various types, calling them the "sign" type, the "slogan" type, the "soothsayer"
type, etc.
1
Such classification of the text of the Qur'an only betrays Bell's lack of
proper understanding of it. So far as his dating of the Qur'anic passages is
concerned it is as conjectural and untenable as Noldeke's and is similarly not
acceptable to the other orientalists. As regards his "hypothesis" of "revision" of
the Qur'an he makes a number of assumptions that are further enlarged by his
pupil M. Watt. In doing so the latter adopts three lines of argument. First, he
refers to the Muslims' concept of naskh or abrogation and cites a number of
Qur'anic passages that he thinks point to the subject of naskh and "the possibility
of revision."
2
Second, he then produces what he considers to be "evidences of
revision and alteration" found in the Qur'an;
3
and third, he presents "Bell's
hypothesis of written documents" in support of the theory of revision.
4
The
following is a brief analysis of these arguments.
(i) On the concept of naskh and Watt's theory of possibility of revision
As regards the point about naskh (abrogation) Watt cites in the first instance a
total of 7 Qur'anic passages, namely, 87:6-7 (ai-'A'Iay; 2:106 (ai-Baqarah); 18:24
(ai-Kahj); 13:39 (ai-Ra'd); 16:101(ai-NaM; 17:41 and 17:86 (ai-'Isra). The first three
passages, he says, indicate that Allah may cause the Prophet "to forget some
verses; but if he does so, he will reveal other verses in their place."
5
It should be
pointed out that the first of this series of three passages asks the Prophet not to
move his tongue quickly in order to grasp what is conveyed to him of wal!J,
assuring him that Allah will make him recite and he will not forget anything,
"except what He wills". This last clause, though it might be stretched to include
the concept of naskh, is not meant to say that Allah will make the Prophet forget
some of the "verses" revealed to him but really to emphasize that the power of
making the Prophet remember or forget anything belongs solely to Allah. The
second passage of course relates to the concept of naskh, but Watt's rendet;ing of
it is "tendentially shaped"; for he translates it as: "For whatever verse we cancel or
cause (the messenger) to forget we bring a better or the like of it." The insertion
of "the messenger" in parenthesis is not called for; nor is the word "For" at the
beginning at all appropriate. Also, the rendering of the word 'qyah as "verse" is not
quite correct. It has a generic sense here and means "revelation" or "sign". The
'qyah starts with ma meaning "whatever" and not "for", as Watt renders it. The
1
See W. M. Watt (ed), Bell'.r Introduction to tbe,Qur'dn, Edinburgh University Press, 1970, pp. 69-84.
2
Watt, Bell'.r Introdudion etc., op. cit., pp. 86-88.
' Ibid., pp.89-101.
4
Ibid., pp. 101-107.
' Ibid., p. 87.
'qyah runs as : 4.1!.. } 4;.. ~ ..::..>U ~ J( ~ ~ ~ .y ~ L. , and its correct translation is:
"Whatever We abrogate of a revelation or make it forgotten, We bring something
better than it or its like." There is no need here to insert the word (messenger) in
parenthesis and thus restrict its meaning. The 'qyah is general in nature and it may
mean either the replacement of the revelation to a previous Prophet by that to a
later Prophet or the modification of a previously prescribed rule by a subsequent
rule revealed to the same Prophet. In fact the first meaning is more appropriate
here; for the 'qyah is a follow-on to its previous 'qyah 105 which speaks of the
unbelieving Jews' and polytheists' dislike of any "god" (khqyr), i. e., revelation,
coming to the Prophet Muhammad (p. b. h.).
As regards the third passage, 18:24, Watt himself recognizes that "it could also
refer to the forgetting of matters other than revelations".
1
In fact it has no relation
with the theme of naskh and refers to other things than revelations. The fourth
(13: 19) and fifth (16: 101) passages are of course relevant to the concept of naskh;
but the sixth (17:41) and seventh (17:86) are not relevant to it. In fact Watt
grossly misinterprets the fifth passage, translating its key-word [arrajna (La r>) as
"We have made changes". The word does not bear that sense, neither here nor
anywhere. In fact, this very word has been used in the Qur'an at 6 places -17:41,
17:89, 18:54, 20:113, 25:50 and 46:27- and in another formulation, nu[arrifu, at 4
places - 6:46, 6:65, 6:105 and 7:58 - and in all these places it means "we
explained/ elucidated/ spelt out" or words to that effect. The word rarrafa (form II
of {arafa) of course also means to cause to flow, to despatch, to dispose, inflect, to
conjugate and the like; but never "to make changes."
2
Watt has simply tampered
with the meaning in total disregard of the context of the 'qyah. Similarly the
seventh passage (17:86) does in no way refer to the concept of naskh but
emphasizes the fact that the sending down of the Qur'an on the Prophet is a
matter of Allah's immense grace on him and that if He willed He could take it
away from him. In fact the whole of the passage from 'qyah 82 to 'qyah 89 relates
to Allah's special favour of sending down the Qur'an.
Thus, of the seven passages cited by Watt four are irrelevant to the concept
of naskh and the rest, i.e., 2:106, 13:19 and 16:101, refer either to the abrogation
of the previous scriptures by the Qur'an or the modification of certain earlier
rules in the Qur'an in view of the change of circumstances. As already pointed
I Ibid
2
The word has been used in some eight different senses in the Qur'an, none in the sense of making changes. See
Al-l'!usain Ibn Mulfammad al-Damaghani, (Qdmil.r a!Qur'dn, Beirut, 1985, pp 279-280.
out, the first sense, i. e., the abrogation of the previous scriptures, is more
appropriate to 2:106. And this is also the case with 16:101; for it contains a
reference to the reaction of the unbelievers to the Prophet's recitation of the
Qur'an to them - "they say, you are but a forger!" If the Prophet was giving out
a "revised version" of any 'qyah or passage, their reaction would have been
something like : "You say one thing at one time and a different thing at another
time". Thus the predominant sense of the three passages is the abrogation of the
previous scriptures by the Qur'an.
Be that as it may, Muslims accept the concept of naskh (abrogation); but it is
not the same as what the term "revision" implies. As Watt himself recognizes, the
concept of naskh "is that certain commands to the Muslims in the Qur'an were
only of temporary application, and that when circumstances changed they were
abrogated or replaced by others."
1
He further observes that because the earlier
commands were the word of God "they continued to be recited as part of the
Qur'an" and that this fact "is a confirmation of the accuracy of the text, since it
shows that later textual scholars did not remould it in accordance with their
conceptions."
2
Having thus recognized the true implication of the Muslims'
concept of naskh Watt still insists that the 'qyahs he has cited show that "some
revision of the Qur'an (as it was publicly proclaimed) took place" and that these
'qyahs "indicate something more extensive than is contemplated in the doctrine of
abrogation."
3
And in support of this latter assertion he cites the Qur'anic passage
22:52-53 (ai-Ijqj;) and says that this passage "is usually illustrated by the story of
the 'satanic verses' " which was first inserted in surah 53 (ai-Nqjm) and later on
expunged. He then further enlarges the supposed implication of the passage and
observes: "there is nothing in the passage to prevent something similar having
happened in a number of other cases. The underlying principle is that something
once proclaimed and recited as part of the Qur'an came to be regarded as satanic
and then no longer regarded as belonging to the Qur'an."
4
Thus does Watt ultimately bank upon the old and spurious story of the
"satanic verses" to sustain his theory of revision. He harps upon this story also in
his works on the life of the Prophet. The spuriousness of the story has been
proved by many.
5
Also the passage 22:52-53 has nothing to do with the spurious
1
Watt, Bell's Introduction etc., op. cit., pp. 87-88.
2
Ibid, pp. 88, 89 (the first sentence on p. 88 and the last sentence of the same page continued top. 89).
3
Ibid. pp. 87, 88 (the last sentence on p. 87 and the second sentence on p. 88).
4
Ibid., p. 88.
' See M. M. Ali, Sirat ai-Nabf and the Orientali.rt.r, Vol. IB, Mad ina, 1997, pp. 683-702. See also J. Burton, "Those are the
story of the satanic verses. As 'Abu J:Iayyan al-Andalusi rightly points out, it has
reference to the efforts of the previous Prophets to disseminate the truth and the
devil's role as opponent of it and the ultimate success of the truth.
1
Watt not only
supposes the story to be an established fact but also inflates its supposed
implication out of all proportions by saying that "there is nothing in the text of
the passage to prevent something similar having happened in a number of other
cases." Watt cannot, however, lay his hand on a single instance of "something
similar having happened" and that his "number of other cases" are only in the
realm of his supposition and imagination. If such supposed number of other
cases had ever happened, the Prophet's position would inevitably have been
irretrievably compromised and his followers would have simply deserted him and
he would not have attained any success in his mission. Watt first attempts to
show the "possibility" of something having happened; and when he thinks that
possibility to have been illustrated, he assumes, without any evidence
whatsoever, that that something had actually happened. He conveniently
disregards the distinction between the "possibility" of something happening and
the "fact" of its having actually happened. Thus having presented the possibility
of revision and his assumption that some revision of the Qur'an had taken place,
he proceeds to present what he considers to be the "evidences of revision and
alteration" in the text of the Qur'an.
(ii) On Watt's supposed evidences if revision and alteration
The argument that Watt invokes in respect of his "evidences of revision"
consists of two points. First, he emphasizes that the Prophet himself put together
the various units of revelation to make up the surahs and that "this process was
continuous with his receiving of revelations."
2
Then he says, second, that when
this work of putting together of the pieces was done, "some adaptation took
place"/ mainly for streamlining the rhymes. He produces a number of passages to
illustrate this supposed adaptation.
In support of the first point Watt, besides citing 75:17, mentions (a) that when
the Prophet's opponents were challenged to produce a surah (10:38) or ten surahs
(11:13) like what had been revealed to him he was in possession of at least ten
surahs; (b) that the grouping of some surahs by the disjointed letters at their
High-Flying Cranes", Journal of Semitic Studie.r, vol. 15, n. 2, 1970, pp. 246-265.
1
'Abu I;Iayyan (Mul]ammad ibn Yusuf) al-Andalusi, Tafrir a/.Baf?r al-Muf?i(, vol. VI, second impression, Dar al-Fikr,
Beirut, 1398/1987, pp. 381-382.
2
Watt, Bell'.r Introduction etc., p. 89.
' Ibid., p. 90.
beginnings (surahs 40-46) which could not have been added by later "collectors",
indicates that "these groups already existed as groups" in the Prophet's lifetime;
and (c) that "the great variation in the length of the suras is hardly accounted for
by differences of subjects, rhyme or form - the type of criterion which might
have been used by collectors".
1
These are cogent arguments and Watt is very
much right in stating that the Prophet himself put together the different pieces to
make up the surahs.
But Watt is very much wrong in his assumption that "some adaptation took
place" while the work of putting together was done; and the passages he cites to
illustrate his assumption only prove his lack of understanding of the Qur'an and
the forced and inconsistent nature of his reasoning. Thus he says: "It would seem
that sometimes, when a passage with one assonance was added to a sura with a
different assonance, phrases were added to give it the latter assonance." As an
example he cites the passage 23:12-16 (surat al-Mu'minun) which runs as follows:
.r-k if aJ)l.. if l.<1..:. J..i.l J (12)
)} ,} Uk.i .u..... rl (13)
La.,:. rl (14)

l...>J i\.,6.ll \j
\.Al.,:. o\jGf rl
..:_r--->f .uJI .!.I JL,.::i
0 _,:..J rl (15)
.. , 4..ow.ll <: :\ (16)
iY.. r-- t"'
Watt says that the 'qyahs of this passage each terminates with the rhyme fn or
un "which is the assonance of the sura as a whole;" but the passage is a later
insertion in the surah because, (a) 'qyah 14 "is unusually long" and "can be broken
up into six short verses", the first five rhyming in -a, while the sixth rhymes in in,
but this "sixth" part "is superfluous to the sense". (b) Therefore, the previous
'qyahs 12 and 13 should have also rhymed in a-, which would be the case if the
terminating phrases of the two, min tin and fl qarar makin are dropped. (c) Then
the passage from 'qyahs 12 to 14 would constitu,te a group of seven verses
rhyming in -a, "describing the generation of man as a sign of God's creative
I Ibid., p. 90.
power." Watt further states that "the removal of the rhyme-phrases seems to give
a better sense"; and it should "be supposed that verses 15 and 16 were added as
part of the adaptation of the passage to its place in this sura."
1
These surmises and assumptions of Watt are all wrong. It needs to be pointed
out that the Qur'an and therefore the Prophet says very emphatically in reply to
the allegations or demand of the unbelievers of his community that he did not
himself produce the Qur'an (69:44-4 7) nor could he alter it of his own accord. He
followed and gave out only what was communicated to him (10:15). Watt of
course notes these 'qyahs; but he interprets the latter 'qyah by saying that the
Prophet did not "of his own accord" change any revelation to him but the
changes came about "by the initiative of God", i. e., what the Prophet thought to
be revelation to him.
2
This interpretation is another formulation of Watt's view
about wary as "intellectual" or "imaginative locution" on the Prophet's part. The
fault and untenability of that view has been shown earlier. But apart from this,
Watt's assumptions are untenable on other grounds.
First, he admits that the rhyme of the passage 23:12-16 (tn or -un) is the
assonance of the surah as a whole. Hence, having regard to the assonance and
rhyme, this passage ought not to have been considered a revised version inserted
into the surah. Watt's only surmise is that since 'qyah 14 of the passage is
"unusually" long and can as well be broken into "six" short "verses", the passage
is not only a later insertion here but also a revised version of another passage with
a different assonance. But this surmise, which he appears to take over from his
mentor Bell, is not at all tenable; for there are in the Qur'an many such long 'qyahs
along with and in the midst of relatively short 'qyahs; and all these 'qyahs are not
later insertions. In fact, Watt's argument can be more appropriately used against
his assumption; for if the Prophet revised and adapted the passage in question to
the surah, he could easily have broken the long 'qyah into a number of short ones
to conform to the rest of the 'qyahs, the more so as Watt himself sees it easy to do
so!
But on this surmise alone Watt builds other surmises. Thus he supposes,
secondly, that the terminating phrases of 'qyahs 12 and 13, min ttn and ft qarar
maktn respectively, are later adaptations, that their removal would result in all the
three 'qyahs 12-14 (Watt's supposed seven verses) rhyming in a and that the
whole passage would then have a better and clearer sense. He is totally wrong in
I Ibid., p.p. 90-91.
2
Ibid., pp. 86-87.
all these assumptions. The word su/d/ah in 'qyah 12, as Watt recognizes, means
"extract", "derivative", "progeny", "descendant", "stock" and the like; and to
complete the sense it must be followed by "of something/ someone". By itself it
does not complete the meaning. It is to be noted that the only other place in the
Qur'an, 32:8, where the word is used it is followed by "of a base water" (md'
mahfn). At this latter place the description is of how, after the first creation of man
out of "clay" his progeny was multiplied out of the su/d/ah of a base water, i.e.,
spermatozoa contained and carried by the "base water". Watt mistakenly assumes
that since at 32:8 su/d/ah means 'semen', this is also the meaning here at 23:12 and
there need not be any need to add the phrase min tfn here. He is wrong in a
number of ways. He overlooks the meaning of su/d/ah, which is simply an extract,
a derivative, or what is drawn out of something, not by itself "semen". Secondly,
he fails also to see that if su/a/ah is interpreted as "semen" the reference will be not
to the creation of the first man, which is the intention of 'qyah 12, it will also
result in superfluity, because the following 'qyah 13 also speaks of "drop", i.e.,
semen. The superfluity will be all the more glaring because this latter 'qyah starts
with the expression thumma, meaning "thereafter". Hence the expression min tfn is
absolutely necessary for the sake of completeness and clarity of the sense of the
'qyah 12. Thirdly and more importantly, Watt fails to understand that while at 32:8
the description is simply about the multiplication of the progeny of the first man,
the description at 23:12 is about the stages of development of the human embryo
in the process of the creation of the progeny of man. And because of this lack of
understanding he says that the phrases min tfn and ft qardr makfn (womb) at the
ends respectively of 'qyahs 12 and 13 are unnecessary. The omission of these
phrases, far from making the sense better and clear, will render it incomplete and
incomprehensible; for the stages of development described do not happen
independently but in a safe and secure "container", the mother's womb. Hence
the expressionft qardr makfn is indispensable here. Fourthly, Watt is also wrong in
his statement that the concluding part of 'qyah 14, fa tabdrak A//ahhu 'absan
al-khdliqfn (blessed be God the best of creators) is superfluous. It is not. Because
the 'qyah is emphasizing God's creative power, it is just the befitting and
appropriate conclusion of the 'qyah. The passage in question is not thus at all
revised and inserted into the surah.
Similarly ill-conceived and misinterpreted are the other passages Watt cites as
his evidences of revision. Thus the second passage which he cites in this
ON THE LANGUAGE AND STYLE OF THE QUR' AN 289
connection and which he considers "of special interest" is the long passage of
surah 3 ('AI 'Imran), from its 'qyah 21 to 'qyah 190. He says that while the first part
of the surah up to about 'qyah 20 rhymes in as does its last part from 'qyah
190 to 200, the "large middle section" has the rhyme in He further says that
of the middle section, 'qyahs 37 to 41 dealing with Maryam rhyme in adding
that even 'qyah 36 would so rhyme if the last word of it, al-rqjfm were removed.
"Thus", he states, "it looks as if a portion with the rhyme had been inserted
into a sura which originally rhymed in and an attempt made to dovetail the
two pieces together."
1
Now, it is to be noticed that while in the previous instance Watt's main
argument is that when an insertion of a passage was made into a surah, the
terminating phrases of the 'qyahs of that passage were modified so as to rhyme
with the rest of the surah, here his argument is that a change in the rhyme of a
certain passage in the surah is evidence of its having been inserted into that surah.
Clearly Watt fails to see the inconsistency of his approach. He also fails to see the
fallacy of his argument; for, if a passage was inserted into a surah without making
any change in the wording of that passage, specially the terminating or rhyming
words of its 'qyahs, it does not constitute any revision at all! Further, he is wrong
in his premise that the surah in question except the supposedly inserted large
middle section rhymes in Its very second 'qyah terminates with the rhyme 'um
(qcryyum), its third 'qyah with the rhyme -1 and its sixth and eighteenth
'qyahs with the same rhyme Similarly, its last 'qyah terminates with the
rhyme un So it is far from correct to say that the surah has, without the
large middle section from 'qyah 21 to 190, the uniform rhyme of Nor is the
supposedly inserted middle section characterized by the uniform rhyme of
Thus 'qyahs 65-66, 69-72, 75, 78-80, 83-84, 88, 90, 98-99, 102-104, 106-107,
109-113, 116-119, 122-123, 128, 130, 132, 135, 140, 153-154, 157-158, 160-161,
163, 167, 169-170 and 185-187 all terminate in the rhyme un/ur. It is strange that
Watt appears to assume that his readers would not be conversant with the
original text of the Qur'an and would therefore take from him whatever he says
about it! But his worst fallacy is the assumption, based of course on the views of
his predecessors like Noldeke, that the Qur'an is some sort of a poetical work and
that each poetical piece should have one and a uniform rhyme. It is overlooked
I I hid., p. 92.
that even a short poetical piece does have a variety of rhymes. In fact such variety
is its beauty and naturalness.
1
It is not necessary to analyse the other passages cited by Watt to illustrate his
view. Suffices it to say that they are all characterized by similar fallacies and
misinterpretations. Besides the above mentioned line of argument, however, Watt
musters other grounds for the theory of revision, particularly what he and his
mentor conceive to be "unevenness in the style" of the language which is claimed
to be the "fundamental evidence for revision." He spells out this "fundamental
evidence" as: (a) " abrupt changes of rhyme"; (b) "repetition of the rhyme-word or
rhyme-phrase in adjoining verses"; (c) introduction of "an extraneous subject into
a passage otherwise homogeneous"; (d) "differing treatment of the same subject
in neighbouring verses, often with repetition of words and phrases"; (e) breaks in
grammatical construction; (f) "abrupt changes in the length of verses"; (g)
"sudden changes in the dramatic situation, with changes of pronoun from
singular to plural, from second to third person, and so on"; (h) the juxtaposition
of apparently contrary statements and (i) "the juxtaposition of passages of
different date, with the intrusion of late phrases into early verses." These features
are so common, further states Watt, that they are generally regarded as
characteristics of the Qur'an's style; but they are "most simply explained by
supposing a measure of revision and alteration ... "
2
No. These features, which are rather imaginary and conjectural, cannot be
"simply explained by supposing a measure of revision". In fact, nothing historical
can or should be "simply explained" by supposition and surmises. It needs to be
pointed that even if the features mentioned are admitted for argument's sake as a
correct assessment of the Qur'anic text, they, far from indicating any measure of
revision, only prove the fact acknowledged even by Watt that many of the
passages revealed at different times were put together as thry were to form surahs.
In other words, the features mentioned are overwhelmingly indicative of the lack
of any revision, alteration or modification.
1
The commonest instance is the famous and popular childhood poem:
Twinkle twinkle little star.
How I wonder what you are!
Up above the world so high'
Like a diamond in the sky.
** ** **
Then you show your little light,
Twinkle twinkle all the night.
2
Watt, Belf.r Introduction etc., op. cit., p. 93.
ON TI-IE LANGUAGE AND S1YLE OF TI-IE QUR'AN 291
As an instance of this so-called "fundamental evidence of revision" Watt
mentions that glosses are a common feature of ancient Greek, Latin and other
manuscripts and then states: "While it is doubtful if the Qur'an contains any
glosses in the strict sense, there is something approaching a gloss in 2:85." It is
noteworthy that this very sentence is an illustration of the "juxtaposition of
apparently contrary statements" characteristic of both Bell and Watt but they very
conveniently and wrongly ascribe this feature to the Qur' an. As regards the
"something approaching a gloss in 2:85 [2:84-85]" Watt quotes in his translation
the 'qyahs and then observes: "The clause about ransoming prisoners seems an
intrusion here ... If this clause is removed, the following clause, ... 'although it is
forbidden to you' is perfectly clear without the addition of 'their expulsion', ...
There is thus a strong presumption that 'their expulsion' is a gloss or addition,
made after the clause about ransoming prisoners had been intruded. "
1
How grossly Watt has misconceived and misinterpreted the passage in
question will be clear if it is quoted in original and translated properly. The
passage runs as:
J riJ}f if '1 J '1 \.j,i,:.f J (84)
0\J..WIJ 0 J..r"U;.; r"' if 0 J 0 jill '1 J.A>ts (85)
... 0Jp; J ..,.,t:S:J, 0_,.:..-_pf r..r-v r J <..>) ..... f rS A 01 J
(84) "And [recall[ when We took your covenant - you will not shed the blood of yourselves
nor will drive out yourselves from your homes; then you confirmed it and you were testifymg.
(85) Yet, you are the ones, killing yourselves and driving out a group of you from their homes,
backing up against them in offence and enmity; and if they come to you as captives you ransom
them, while it was prohibited for you their expulsion. Do you then believe in part of the Book
and disbelieve in part? ... "
This passage speaks of the inconsistent conduct of the Madinan Jewish tribes
who took opposite sides in the wars between the then two polytheist tribes of
Aws and Khazraj, thus fighting against and killing their (the Jews') own people
contrary to the injunctions of the Torah. But when the war ended and they found
their people as prisoners of war they ransomed them irrespective of tribal
affiliations as required by the teachings of the Torah. They are therefore asked
whether they believe in part of the Torah and disbelieve in part of it.
2
Watt
misunderstands the clause "and if they come to you as captives you ransom them"
as a new provision intruded here, and translates it as: "and if they come to you as
I Ibid., pp. 93-94.
2
See AI-Tabari, Tafrir, pt. I., pp. 396-397.
prisoners, you shall ransom them." The clause is neither a command nor a
provision intruded here. It simply refers to what the Jews used to do. And since
Watt misunderstands the clause he concludes that the following statement, "while
it is forbidden for you their expulsion", is an attempt to remove the ambiguity
created by the intrusion of the previous "provision" (clause) and is thus a gloss on
the original text. In any case, Watt does not pause to think that if any person is
capable of revising and does revise any particular statement or sentence, he will
not introduce in it any new provision or clause making the text more complicated
and adding a gloss at the end in an attempt to remove the unnecessary
complication. He will simply introduce the new provision or clause as an
independent statement. Thus the argument which Watt adduces in fact rebounds
on himself and dislodges what he himself describes as only a "presumption". He
similarly misconceives and misconstrues the other passages to which he refers in
this connection.
Another plea which he advances is that clauses following the expression: "And
what will make you understand ( wa ma 'adraka) what.... is?" are added as
explanations of unusual words or phrases. "It is clear", he stresses, "that some of
the descriptions have been added at a later time, since they do not correspond to
the sense in which the word or phrase was originally taken. "
1
As the "most
striking case" in point Watt cites 101:9-11 and says that the word hawfyah in 'qyah
9 "presumably meant 'childless' owing to the death or misfortune of her [the
mother's] son; but the addition suggests that it is the name of a Hell."
2
Watt is very much wrong in thus stating the purpose of the expression wa ma
'adraka and pressing it as an evidence of "revision". The purpose of the
expression is mainly to put emphasis on and draw attention to the subject
mentioned. It occurs 13 times (not 12 times as Watt says)
3
in the Qur'an; and out
of these at 7 places it does not come after any unusual word or phrase at all.
4
That
the purpose of the expression is to put emphasis is very clear from the first
instance of its occurrence in the Qur'an, at 69:3, where it comes in the following
sequence: "The inevitable What is the inevitable? And what makes you
realise (wa-ma 'adraka) what the inevitable is?" (69:1-3). Now, if the intention was
1
Watt, op. tit., p. 94.
2
Ibid., pp. 94-95.
' See 69:3,74:27,77:14, 82:17, 82:18, 83:8, 83:19, 86:3, 90:12, 97:2,101:3,10:110 and 104:5.
4
These words are: (the inevitable- 69:3),.yawm alja.rl (the day of sorting out- 77:14),}awm al-dfn (the day of
requital [twice] - 72:17,18), al-'aqabah (the obstacle, hurdle, steep road- 90:12), lay/at al-qadr (the night of grade,divine
decree- 97:3) and al-qari'ah (that which hits, disaster- 101:3).
to explain the term 'al-bdqqah, there was no need to bring in the expression wa
md'adraka here at all; for the explanation could have been given immediately after
the interrogative: "What is the inevitable?" More importantly, no explanation of
the term al-l;aqqah follows the query wa md 'adrdka etc. On the other hand the
immediately following 'qyahs describe the fates of the 'Ad and the Thamud
peoples because of their disbelieve in al-qariah (the disaster). One might think this
to be an abrupt change of subject. But that is not at all the case. After having
drawn the attention of the reader/listener to al-l}dqqah and making him aware of
its importance, mention is made of the fates of two most prominent nations
because of their disbelief in it.
Specially noteworthy is the expression al-qari'ah used here to refer to al-l;aqqah.
But this word al-qari'ah is not explained here, nor at 13:31 (al-Ra'd) where it first
occurs in the Qur'an. Whereas in surah 101 (alQdri'ah) it occurs in its veiy first
'qyah; and the second 'qyah is an introductory interrogative like that in 69:2, i. e.,
"What is al-qari'ah?"'; followed in the third 'qyah by the expression: wa ma 'adrdka
ma al-qari'ah (what makes you realize what al-qdri'ah is?). As in the case of surah 69,
here also the purpose of this latter expression is to emphasize and draw attention
to the subject, not really to explain the term; for the explanation could have been
given immediately after the second 'qyah: "What is al-qari'ah?'. Such purpose of
emphasis is clear at the 5 other places where the expression comes after no
unusual or difficult word or phrase.
At the remaining 6 places (74:27, 83:87, 83:19, 86:2, 101:10 and 104:5) the
expression is intended for both emphasis and elucidation; but the elucidatory 'qyahs
that follow are not later additions at any of these places. For, not only is there no
report or evidence suggesting that these were later additions or revelations, even
the criterion adopted by Watt is not applicable in these cases. Watt says that the
additions "do not correspond to the sense in which the word or phrase was
originally taken." Such is not the case at any of the places. In fact his mistake lies
in this assumption of non-correspondence of the original sense of the word or
phrase with that of the elucidatory description. And this mistake is most obvious
in respect of 101:10-11 which he cites as his "most striking case". Here he ignores
the context which is the description of the destiny of those whose balance of
good deeds will be heavy or light. 'Ayahs 6 and 7 state that the one whose balance
will be heavy will have a pleasant life (in the hereafter). Then 'qyahs 8 and 9 say
that the one whose balance will be light, "his mother will be hdw!Jah." Evidently
this phrase has a sense opposite to the destiny of the doer of good deeds. Watt
ignores the context and takes the word 'umm in its literal and physical sense of
"mother" and the word hdwfyah to mean "childless". The two words of course
mean "mother" and "childless"; but they have other meanings as well. Thus the
word 'umm has been used in at least five senses in the Qur'an, including "origin",
head or principal, place of return/ refuge, destination.
1
Even in English "mother"
has a variety meanings other than female parent, such as "origin", "quality or
condition that gives rise to something", and, as verb, to take care of, to protect,
etc.
2
Similarly the word hdwfyah means chasm, abyss, gulf, bottomless pit, hell,
besides "childless". The exact meanings of 'umm and hdwfyah at any given
statement have therefore to be determined by the theme and context. If Watt had
done so, he would have found no inconsistency between the original sense of the
expression: fa 'ummuhu hdwfyah (then his destination/place of resort will be
hdwfyah) and the explanatory clause: ndr hdmfyah (a fire/hell extremely scorching).
Even when a person is fallen or ruined the Arabs customarily refer to his position
as "his mother has lost him" (hawat 'ummuhu ..,( ..;:J y.).
3
This is an idiom. So whether
taken as an idiom or in the accepted senses of the words, there is no
inconsistency between the meanings of the original expression the
explanatory clause. The "mother" of Watt's fault is his implicit assumption that
while "authoring" the Qur'an Mul).ammad (p.b.h.) was inept enough to describe
something by an inappropriate or unusual expression and heedless enough to give
it subsequendy a strange meaning! No confusion and misconception could have
been more pitiable.
Such unreasonableness and absurdities characterise Watt's statements in
connection with the other passages he cites as evidences of revision. In fact the
Bell-Watt fallacies in this regard may be grouped under the following heads: (a)
Inconsistent suggestions in respect of rf?ymes (b) Incomprehension of theme and context, (c) sheer
assumption and misinterpretation, (d) Abuse of the fact of the coming of revelations in
instalments; and (e) Perversion of the concept of naskh.
Watt's misinterpretation of the concept of naskh has already been noted. Some
instances of the fallacies under the other four heads are noted below.
(a) Inconsistent suggestions in respect of rf?ymes: Thus, in respect of some of the
passage it is argued that it indicates a change of subject, so it must have been
' See Majd a!-Din Muryammad ibn Y a'qub a!-Firuzabadi, Ba.ra 'ir dhawi al-tamyizfl /a[d 'ifai-Kitah a!- 'A::;fv voL II, Beirut,
n.d., pp. 111-112; I;Iusayn ibn Mul;mmmad al-Damagharu,.QJmu.r Beirut, 1985, pp. 41-42.
2
See A.S. Hornby, Learner'.r Dictionary ofCumnt Eng/i .. h, Oxford, 1974, p. 551.
' See Al-Tabari, Tafrir, Pt. 30, p. 282; Abu I;Iayyan al-Andalusi, VoL 10, Makka, n. d., p. 533.
inserted later in its place simply because it conforms in rhyme to that of the rest
of the surah. While in respect of some other passage it is argued that it is a later
insertion there because 1t differs in rhyme . Thus in one breath the reader is told
that the supposed "author's" overriding consideration was the keeping of the
rhyme uniform in the surah; and in another breath the reader is required to believe
that the "author" was careless about rhyme and even subject matter while making
the alleged revision! Some instances of this type of inconsistent reasoning have
been noted earlier. A few others may be mentioned here by way of illustration.
Thus in respect of surah 91 (al-Shams) Watt says that its 'qyahs 11-15 are a later
insertion, either "to illustrate the moral" or simply "because of the similar rhyme".
Then in respect of surah 88 (al-GhashiJah) he states that its 'qyahs 6 and 7 are a later
insertion because they have a different rhyme.
1
Similarly he states that 'qyahs 34-40
of surah 19 (Maryam) is a later addition because this passage has a different rhyme
from that of the 'qyahs preceding and following it.
2
Again Watt supposes that
'qyahs 34-37 of surahh 80 ('Abasa) is a later insertion because the rhyme of this
passage differs from what precedes and follows it.
3
He completely disregards the
fact that these 'qyahs are a natural sequence to 'qyah 34 and describe what will
happen after the event mentioned in the latter. Inconsistently enough, after
having mentioned the above passage as an evidence of revision because of its
different assonance, Watt immediately cites 2:102-103 (al-Baqarah) as another
revision because they both end in the same rhyme!
4
(b) Incomprehension if theme and context. Often a "change of subject" or "break in
the connection of thought" is assumed in respect of a passage because of lack of
understanding of the theme and context and it is supposed to be a. "later
insertion" in its place. Thus Watt says that 'qyahs 33 and 34 of surah 78 (al-Nabd}
are a later insertion there because of the break of the "connection between verses
32 and 35."
5
The whole section from 'qyas 31 to 36 describes the rewards awaiting
the righteous in the hereafter and there is no break of connection or theme in
these 'qyahs. Watt simply fails to understand the theme here. Again he says that
'qyah 16 of surah 87 (a!- 'A 'lay is a later insertion here because it constitutes "a
sudden change in the dramatic situation".
6
'/{yahs 12 to 15 describe the
1
Watt, Befl'.r Introduction eft:, op. cit., p. 95.
2
Ibid., p. 96 .
.1 Ibid., p. 97.
4
Ibid.
' Ibid.p. 95.
6
Ibid.
contrasting positions in the hereafter respectively of the rejecters of the message
and those who accept it and purify themselves. Then 'qyahs 16 and 17 very
appropriately remind the reader/listener of his preferment of and engrossment
with the "life in this world; though the hereafter is better and more lasting." There
is no "sudden change in the dramatic situation" here. The supposed change exists
only in the lack of understanding of the passage as a whole.
Similarly based on a lack of understanding of the theme and context is the
statement that some of the "reservations introduced by illd are later additions. As
cases in point Watt specially mentions 'qyah 7 of surah 87 (ai-'A'It1) and 'qyah 6 of
surah 95 (ai-Ttn), adding that the latter instance "ilia introduces a longer verse,
which has characteristic Madinan phraseology".
1
As regards the first mentioned
'qyah, 87:7, it may be recalled that earlier in his discussion Watt cites it as evidence
for his assumption that the Prophet did forget some of the revelations,
2
and now
he cites the same 'qyah as evidence of the Prophet's having introduced it later on.
As pointed out earlier, the 'qyah in question does not show in any way that the
Prophet forgot some of the revelations. It is a natural follow-on to its
immediately preceding 'qyah and it reminds the Prophet that to enable him to
remember what is revealed to him or make him forget it is Allah's will and grace
so that he should not worry about remembering the revelations made to him. In
fact the 'qyah is an assurance that he shall not forget anything. Watt simply fails to
understand this theme and context, or misinterprets the 'qyah for his purpose.
As regards the second 'qyah, 95:6, it is neither disproportionately long in
comparison with the other 'qyahs of the surah nor is its phraseology Madinan. On
the contrary it is a natural follow-on to 'qyahs 4 and 5 which say: "We have indeed
created man in the best of form. Then We do revert him to the lowest of the
low". The implication is that this will be the position of those who do not believe
and commit sins. This implication is made very clear in the exception made in
'qyah 6 which points out that such shall not be the position of those who believe
and do good deeds, for whom shall indeed be incessant rewards. If this latter
'qyah is removed, 'qyah 5 will mean that Allah will revert all mankind to the lowest
of the low position without any exception, which is not only inconsistent with the
concept of divine justice but also with 'qyah 7 which makes a call to believe in
judgement and recompense. Watt grossly misunderstands or misconstrues the
I Ibid.
2
See .rupra, p.
entire passage from 'qyahs 4-8 and arbitrarily assumes that the 'qyah 6 is a later
insertion.
The same lack of understanding underlies his statement that the passages
introduced by f;atta 'idhd after 23:63 (surat al-Mu'minun) till 23:98 are later and
alternative continuations.
1
Another instance of such lack of understanding is Watt's citing of 'qyahs 135
and 136 of surah 3 ('AI 'Imran) as a later insertion because, according to him, they
constitute a repetition of what is said in the previous two 'qyahs 133 and 134.
2
This is not at all so. 'Ayah 133 calls upon to be prompt in seeking Allah's
forgiveness; 'qyah 134 encourages charity, patience in prosperity and adversity and
forbearance towards fellow-beings; 'qyah 135 speaks of those who, after having
committed an abominable act or wrong, hastens to seek Allah's forgiveness and
do not persist in committing the sins; and 'qyah 136 points out that such people, i.
e., those who meet the criteria mentioned in the previous three 'qyahs, shall have
Allah's forgiveness and reward. There is no repetition in the last two 'qyahs of
what is said in the previous two 'qyahs. Watt has simply failed to understand the
passage and has drawn his wrong conclusion on the basis of a faulty
understanding of it.
Again, Watt cites 'qyahs 9 and 10 of surah 22 (al-Ifqj;) as a later addition because
they "threaten not only future punishment but 'humiliation in this life', a Madinan
threat". "The change of tone and attitude shows clearly enough", states Watt,
"that these verses did not belong to the original passage."
3
The 'qyahs in question
of course threaten those who do not believe in the resurrection and dispute about
Allah without knowledge and guidance, who are mentioned in the previous 'qyah
8. As such 'qyahs 9 and 10 are a natural continuation and completion of the
theme. There is no change of tone and attitude because of the nature of the threat
being "Madinan". Watt simply overlooks the fact that surah 22 is Madinan!
Another instance of Watt's misunderstanding of the whole theme and context
is his citing of 39:70-74 (surat al-Zumar) as a later insertion because he
misconceives its 'qyah 75 as repeating the scene of Judgement which "is already
finished"!
4
It is not a repetition of the "scene" of judgement but a conclusion of it
reiterating that judgement shall indeed be given rightly and truly.
1
Watt, BciL.r Introduction, etc.,op. dt., p. 97.
2
Ibid, p. 96
' Ibid.
4
Ibid., p. 97.
(c) Sheer assumption and misinterpretation: Sometimes an 'qyah or passage is simply
misinterpreted and is assumed to be a later insertion in its place. A characteristic
instance is Watt's remark in connection with 'qyah 56 of surah 74 (al-Muddaththir).
He says that this 'qyah limits the freedom of man's choice and "virtually takes back
what had been stated in verse 55", and that this "corresponds to the hardening of
the doctrine of predestination which took place in Madinan days."
1
The 'qyah does
not limit man's choice nor does it postulate "predestination" and "fatalism". In
fact it negatives the view-point of the Qadrites and the J abrites who deny the
existence of man's freedom of choice. This 'qyah, as well as 'qyah 30 of surah 76
(al-Insdn) speak of Allah's Will (mashiJah) and stress that man's acts and intentions
take place by His Knowledge and Will, that the receipt of guidance is a great
favour from Him and that therefore man should always pray for and seek this
favour from Him. That is why the concluding part of the 'qyah (74:56) stresses
that "He is the One to be aware of ('ahl al-taqwt1) and He is the One to grant
forgiveness ('ahl al-magh.ftrah)." Watt simply misinterprets it. But apart from this
misinterpretation, he builds his assumption of "later insertion" in respect of this
'qyah on another faulty assumption, namely, that the "hardening of the doctrine of
predestination ... took place in Madinan days." It needs to be pointed out that
while Watt and his mentor Bell attempt to trace the development of the Prophet's
ideas by determining the dates of the Qur'anic passages and surahs, they in effect
first assume something as having taken place at a certain point of time and then
imposes that point of time on their chosen passage or surah. A characteristic
example of this is their dating of the passages where mention is made of 'Islam,
1
Muslims, angels and Jibril, all of which they arbitrarily and mistakenly assume to
have come to the Prophet's mind and knowledge only at Madina! Be that as it
may, the concept of mashiJat Allah (Allah's Will), whatever implication Watt puts
on it, is contained not only in Madinan passages but also very much in Makkan
passages. Watt's guarded phraseology, "hardening of the doctrine of
predestination ... in Madinan days" betrays an implicit recognition that it had its
origin in Makkan days. The 'qyah in question was not a later insertion at Madina.
Similarly Watt misinterprets and assumes the latter part of 5:41 (surat al-Ma'idah)
which describes some characteristics of the Madinan Jews as an alternative and
later continuation.
2
I IIJtd. p. 95.
2
Ibid., p. 97.
ON TilE LANGUAGE AND STILE OF THE QUR'AN 299
The same sheer assumption underlies Watt's citing of 'qyahs 112-122 of surah
37 as a later insertion because the passage contains "a statement about
the posterity of Abraham and Isaac".
1
The statement is just in line with the
description of the other prophets made before and after this passage. Watt does
not give any specific reason why this passage should be regarded in any way
incongruous or a later insertion.
(d) Twisting of the fact of the coming of revelations in instalments: In respect of many of
his so-called evidences for revision Watt implicitly plays upon the acknowledged
fact that the Qur'anic revelations came in instalments over a period of 23 years
covering the Makkan and the Madinan period of the Prophet's life. It is also
acknowledged by Muslims that some Makkan surahs contain passages revealed at
Madina and vice versa.
2
The very first revelation to the Prophet consisted of the
first five or so 'qyahs of surah 96 (al- 'Alaq). The rest of the surah were later
revelations. The joining of a later passage with an earlier passage is thus implicit
in the very nature of the Qur'anic revelations, and such joining of passages of
different dates to form a surah does not ipso facto constitute what might be called
"revision" of the text. Watt, however, implicitly plays upon this fact in respect of
many of his so-called evidences of revision. Two notable instances of such abuse
of this historical fact are his citing of the last 'qyah of surah 73 and
'qyah 31 of surah 7 4 (al-Muddaththir ) as his evidences of revision. The first
mentioned 'qyah, which lightens the requirement of optional nightly prayer and
recitation of the Qur'an, was revealed at Madina whereas the rest of the surah had
been revealed earlier at Makka. This is an instance of a Makki surah containing a
Madani 'qyah or passage. That this 'qyah is Madani is clearly mentioned in the
standard commentaries.
3
Similarly it is acknowledged that 'qyah 31 of surah 74
(al-Muddaththir) was revealed sometime after the revelation of the first part of the
surah, in reply to some of the unbelieving leaders' audacious remark that his
supporters would be easily able to overcome the only 19 sentinels of the hell, as
mentioned in the previous 'qyah 29.
4
To mention such passages as "evidences" of
revision is clearly a twisting of the fact of the Qur'anic revelations coming in
instalments.
1
Ibzd., p. 96.
2
See al-Suy{Iti, AI-ItqJn ek., op. dt. pp. 41-52.
' See for instance Tafi'i'r alja!Jiayn, Beirut, n. d., p. 773.
4
Al-Tabarl, Tafiir, pt. 29, p. 160.
It is not necessary to note the other passages cited by Watt as his evidences of
revision. Suffice it to say that they all are based on similar misunderstanding,
misinterpretation and inconsistent reasoning.
(iii) On Bell's f?ypothesis of written documents
Finally, Watt presents what he call's "Bell's hypothesis of written documents."
He introduces this section with the remark that "this part of his [Bell's] view has
not met with the same degree of approval."
1
It must at once be pointed out that
not only "this part", but the other parts which Watt has so far presented as the
evidences of revision are also absurd and untenable. This part, however, is the
most absurd so much so that Watt finds it necessary to introduce it with the
above mentioned remark. Not only that, he had earlier penned a rather detailed
critique of this hypothesis of Bell.
2
In essence Bell's theory is another extension
of what is supposed to be a break in the connection of thought or sudden change
of subject in the Qur'anic passages. As noted earlier, Noldeke had sounded a note
of warning against carrying this supposed feature to extremes and regarding every
such passage as an independent piece of revelation. But Bell and Watt have not
only done just that but have built their entire theory of revision on it.
Bell's "hypothesis of written documents" assumes that not only were parts of
the Qur'an written down "at a fairly early stage in Muhammad's career", but that
"the occurrence in the middle of a sura of a passage wholly unrelated to the
context" has to be explained "by the supposition that this passage was written on
the back" of the material "used for one of the neighbouring passages which
properly belonged to the sura."
3
As examples Bell selects 75:16-19, 84:16-19 and
88:17-20; and Watt states that "the argument may be presented most clearly in the
case of the latter", i. e., 88:17-20 (surat ai-Ghdsh!Jah). He quotes in his translation
its 'qyahs 10-21 and then says: "The passage 17-20 has no connection of thought
either with what goes before or with what comes after; and it is marked off by its
rhyme." If, therefore, it is assumed that this passage has been placed here by a
"collector", the question still remains "whether a responsible collector could not
have found a more suitable place for it." Therefore Bell's hypothesis is that "the
verses 17-20 have been placed here because they were found written on the back
of verses 13-16."
4
1
Watt, Befl'.r Introduction etc., p. 101.
2
W. M. Watt, "The dating of the Qur\1n: A review of Richard Bell's theories",J.RA.S., April, 1957, pp. 46-56.
' Watt, Be!l'.r Introduction eft:, op. cit., p. 101.
4
Ibid.
Now, the whole argument revolves round the question of the connection of
thought; and here Watt and his mentor Bell commit their worst mistake. Not only
is there no break in the connection of thought in respect of these 'qyahs 17-20,
they are the most appropriate and natural here. The previous 'qyahs describe the
inevitability of resurrection, judgement and reward and this is followed by 'qyahs
17-20 which draw attention to Allah's wonderful Power of Creation; for belief in
the hereafter can be brought home only if a belief in Allah and His Power of
Creation is forthcoming. The 'qyahs thus draw the listener's/reader's attention to
this fact; and the objects of which the immediate audience, the Arabs, are daily
witnesses and most aware, such as the camels, the sky, the mountains, the plains
in contrast to the latter, are mentioned by way of bringing home to them the
Power of Allah, and, in consequence, in making them believe in Him Alone, His
Messenger and in the hereafter. And this is concluded by encouraging the
Messenger to persist in his preaching and persuasion - "So remind, you are only
one to remind."
1
Such reference to Allah's Power of Creation immediately after a
mention of the inevitability of the resurrection and life in the hereafter is made at
other places also in the Qur'an. Thus the first five 'qyahs of surah 78 (ai-Nabd}
make a reference to the subject of Resurrection and Judgement (a/-Nabd' a/-
and then the immediately following 'qyahs 6-16 draw attention to Allah's Power of
Creation in respect of the earth, the mountains, the male and female, sleep, day
and night, the sky, etc. Bell and Watt fail to grasp this basic theme of the Qur'an
as a whole, namely, the theme of Absolute Unity of Allah, His Power of
which lies at the root of every item of the message and teaching of the Qur'an,
and in consequence misconceive absence of continuity of thought in respect of
many of the Qur'anic passages, even those containing references to the Prophets,
expecting the relevant passages to be full-scale stories of such prophets, and
jump into making assumptions and suppositions to tide over the difficulties
created by their own lack of understanding.
With regard to 7 5:16-19 (sura! ai-Qrydmah) Watt says that "verses 13-16 ... seem
to have been added to 7-12, which deal with the Last Day, and to have been
written on the back of the early 'scrap' containing 16-19."
2
This statement is
somewhat confusing; for he mentions 'qyah 16 as having been written on both
sides of the material. Obviously he means 13-15 instead of 13-16. This latter
passage is of course an address specially directed to the Prophet as a parenthesis
1
It is noteworthy that Watt is wrong in translating this 'dyab as: "So wam. You are only a warner." (ibid.,p. 102).
2
Ibid., p. 102.
along with the description of the resurrection and it is also a very early piece of
revelation as Watt admits. But his or rather Bell's supposition that the passage
7-12 was a "later" addition and was written on the back of the "early 'scrap'
containing 16-19" is wrong; for the passage 7-12 is a natural continuation of the
description of the Day of Resurrection contained in 'qyahs 1-6; and it requires to
be explained how then the 'qyahs 1-6 were before the 'ijyahs 7-12. The supposition
of the passage 7-12 being a later addition is thus totally groundless.
Similarly the supposition that the passage 84:16-19 (sura! ai-Inshiqdq) was a later
addition to the 'qyahs 7-12 because the former "destroy the balance" of the latter
piece
1
is completely wrong. The 'qyahs 16-19 are an emphatic reiteration of the
inevitability of the resurrection and judgement mentioned in the previous 'qyahs
7-12.
It is not necessary to take up the other passages mentioned by Watt to support
the "hypothesis" and "supposition" of the Qur\1nic passages having been written
indiscriminately on both sides of the same material without any care being taken
about the theme and context and then these being mixed up by the "collector".
Suffice it to say that the same lack of understanding and confusion vitiate their
logic and conclusion. Apart from that, however, some very fundamental faults of
the hypothesis may be mentioned. In the first place, its runs counter to the other
supposition made earlier by Watt that the Prophet, while combining the
separately revealed passages into surahs, made "adaptations". A proper historical
and consistent approach demands the determination of the extent of the work
done in this respect by the Prophet and what, if at all, was left uncombined and
uncoordinated. But neither Bell nor his pupil Watt attempt do anything in that
direction. Instead, they appear to make one supposition upon another without
caring to see that some of these conjectures run counter to the others.
Second, the hypothesis requires us to believe that the Prophet, who is depicted
by the orientalists themselves, including Bell and Watt, as a careful planner in
respect of his mission and career, and whose main concern was the giving out of
the revelations which constituted his only claim to Prophethood and to the
obedience of his followers, was careless enough to write down the revelations on
the back of materials that already had earlier revelations written on "another side"
without any regard to theme and context and without any indication of where
I Ibid.
ON THE LANGUAGE AND S1YLE OF THE QUR'AN 303
these supposedly new writings should belong. This is preposterously against
reason and the nature of his mission and career.
Third, Bell and W a t t ~ while arguing that the supposed "collector" so placed an
irrelevant passage in a surah, disregard the fact that the revelations were not
simply written down on suitable objects but were simultaneously given out to the
public and were committed to memory by the Prophet himself and many of his
companions. Specially noteworthy is the fact that the main passages cited by Bell
in support of his hypothesis all belong to the group of short and early surahs
which were easy to memorize and were in fact memorized by many including the
Prophet and were regularly recited during the prayers. It can therefore by no
means be supposed that the passages in question were simply left written down
haphazardly and were then collected by his successors as best as they could.
Fourth, accepting for argument's sake that the passages each containing a few
'4Jahs mentioned by Bell and Watt were written down on one sides of the same
materials containing on their other sides a few earlier '4Jahs occupying an equal
space, it remains to be explained how the other passages or '4Jahs of the surahs
respectively came to be prefixed or suffixed to the supposedly jumbled up
passages. Were these other passages and '4Jahs also written down on some
materials? If so, were there any indications of where those passages should
belong? And if so, why should the passages supposed to be written on the other
sides of the same materials not have any mention of where they were to be
placed? If not, why the supposed collector should not have made up
independent surahs of the unidentified passages, instead of pushing them into
places where they are supposedly misfit? Bell and Watt do not ask themselves
these questions, let alone answering them. Last but not least, Bell and Watt also
disregard the established facts about the collection of the Qur'an in one
compilation. As noted earlier, and as Watt also recognizes, this was done by an
officially appointed committee consisting of a number of experts. It was not, and
could not in the very nature of things, be a matter of discretion for a "collector"
to combine the supposedly isolated passages as he thought convenient and
proper. It is also to be noted that the Committee were specifically instructed to
compare each memorized piece with the written copy and vice versa, and they
meticulously followed this instruction and did not include anything that did not
pass this test. The orientalists, particularly Bell and Watt, do not note this fact and
think that something was collected from memory and something was collected
from written copies. This was not at all the case. And it is because of this
confusion or wilful disregard of the fact that Watt distorts the report of how
Zayd ibn Th:ibit collected the last two 'qyahs of surah 9 (al-Tawbah), saying that he
found these two 'qyahs "when he had almost completed his task of completing the
collection of the Qur'an" and so placed them here "as the most convenient
position at the time." This is a gross misinterpretation of the report in question.
The report does not say that Zayd found the two 'qyahs in isolation and placed
them at the end of surah 9 because he thought this to be the most convenient
position. As noted earlier, the reports very distinctly say that Zayd knew these
concluding 'qyahs of the surah by heart, but did not find them with anyone else, i.
e., in a written form, except with Abu Khuzaymah With regard to
another passage of another surah he very distinctly says that he heard the Prophet
reciting it and thus knew it to be a part of that surah but did not find it with
anyone else except so and so.
1
The reports thus very clearly show that nothing
was included in the compilation unless it was found both in the written and
memorized form or, as another report says, it was corroborated by two
independent witnesses. Bell and Watt not only overlook or sidetrack this
important fact but misinterpret the reports in order to sustain their absurd
hypothesis. On the whole, the confusion and conjectures of Bell and Watt are
simply an extension and exaggeration of the basically mistaken notion
propounded by Noldeke and other earlier orientalists that the Qur'anic text is a
jumble of discordant passages relating to different themes and subjects!
To wind up this discussion, it may be noted that all that Bell and Watt put
forward through their laboured argument and conjectures as the "evidences" of
revision amounts to nothing more than that some supposedly later passages were
added to some earlier passages or that some supposedly irrelevant passages were
combined with passages relating to different themes. These are not, strictly
speaking, instances of "revision" as such, but are rather pointers to the lack of it;
and they can all be best explained in the context of the coming of the Qur'anic
revelations tn instalments over a period of more than twenty years. All that Bell
and Watt say does not prove the case of "revision" but, on the contrary, goes
really to prove that the text of the Qur'an now in our hands is exactly what the
Prophet gave out and left memorized as well as written down.
1
Bukhdri, no. 4988.
CHAPTER XII
ON THE TEXT OF THE QUR'AN:
II. THE SO-CALLED FOREIGN VOCABULARY AND COPYIST'S
ERRORS
I. ON THE NATURALIZED FOREIGN WORDS IN THE QuR' AN IN GENERAL
Ever since the middle of the nineteenth century orientalists have turne<;l their
attention to what they consider "foreign words" in the Qur'an. They indeed take
their cue from the writings of the Muslim classical scholars and exegetes
themselves who, in their eagerness for meticulous studies of all aspects of the
Qur'an, paid attention also to the words and expressions in it that were adopted
and naturalized in the Arabic language of words and expressions of non-Arabic
origin. Of later scholars Jalal al-Din al-Suyliti (d. 910/1505) prepared an
independent monograph on the subject en tided Al-muhadhdhab fl ma waqa 'a fl
ai-Qur'an min al-mu'arrab (A clear statement of what occurs in the Qur'an of
Arabicized words and expressions) and reproduced a summary of this work in a
section of his work on the Qur'anic Sciences, together with an alphabetical list of
such words.
1
Al-Suyliti and others before him emphasize three important facts in this
connection. First, Arabic, Ethiopic, Syriac and Aramaic are cognate languages and
have a good number of words in common because of their common roots.
Second, in the course of the Arabs' long contact with the outside world, especially
in the course of their trade and commerce, a number of words of non-Arabic
origin entered the language and were naturalized, these being considered part and
parcel of the Arabic language. Third, in the course of such adoption and
naturalization the forms as well as the original meanings of the words underwent
some modifications and changes.
These facts are common in respect of almost all important languages. So far as
Arabic is concerned, however, the first mentioned fact may be a litde more
elaborated. Arabic, Aramaic, Syraic and Hebrew are all Semitic languages and all
had the same origin, i.e., the language of the descendants of Sam, Prophet Nul).'s
son. Sam's descendants spread all over the region from Abyssinia in the south to
Iraq-Syria (including Palestine) in the north. The language of these descendants of
Sam gradually developed local characteristics and crystallized into independent
languages. One of the descendants qf Sam was Aram or Iram. The ancestor of
1
Al-Suy{l\i, Al-Itqan Ff 'Uliim al-Qur'dn, vol. I, Riyadh, 1407/1987, pp. 366-380.
the two nations, 'Ad and Thamud, who became very prominent over the entire
region, was this Aram. The Qur'an refers to this fact in connection with a
mention of the fate of the 'Ad people: ~ L . . . J I . . ; . . I ~ r) ~ ~ ~ J j..t J.,? ; r-lf (Do you not
realise how your Lord dealt with 'Ad, of lram, possessing pillars? - Q. 89:6-7).
These 'Ad-Thamud descendants of Aram lived in the region from Y aman to Syria
and their language was the original language of this region as a whole. This
language was, geographically, the original Arabic, and ethnically the original
Aramaic. This original Aramaic is much anterior to and different from the later
Aramaic in which the Jewish Talmud was written. The later Arabic language
developed out of this original Arabie-Aramaic language. It is because of this fact
that all the above mentioned languages have a number of words and expressions
in common, though their senses and connotations have undergone changes due
to the influences of time and locality. At the time the Qur'an came down, a
number of words of these cognate languages as well as languages of the
neighbouring peoples had been naturalized in the Arabic language and were
regarded as part and parcel of the standard and literary Arabic (a!- 'arabfy al-mubin).
The occurrence of such words and expressions in the Qur'an is thus quite natural
because it was sent down in the language of its immediate audience, the Arabs.
II. THE 0RIENTALISTS
1
FICTION OF FOREIGN VOCABULARY
As in the case of the other facts, the orientalists have similarly twisted and
misinterpreted this fact of the existence of some naturalized Arabic words in the
Qur'an in order to assail it and the Prophet. Broadly, they make four types of
insinuation on the basis of this fact. Thus, first, they make personal attacks on the
Prophet saying that he was unable to express his ideas in his native tongue and
therefore had recourse to these "foreign" words. It is further alleged that he was
fond of making a show of his learning by the use of such "uncommon" and
"strange" words. Second, it is said that the Qur'an is not written in "pure" Arabic
as is claimed. Third, the existence of these words in the Qur'an, especially those
borrowed from the languages of the Jews and Christians - Aramaic and Syriac- is
pressed to support the old theory that the Prophet borrowed facts and ideas from
these two religious systems. Fourth, some of the so-called "foreign" words are
used to misinterpret the relevant texts of the Qur'an.
The first modern orientalist to deal with the subject was Aloys Sprenger who,
while engaged to reform the Calcutta Madrasa as its Principal early in the fifties of
the nineteenth century, came in contact with a number of classical Arabic works
THE SO-CALLED FOREIGN VOCABULARY ETC. 307
including Al-Suy11ti's Itqan. As mentioned above, this work contains a chapter on
the naturalized Arabic words in the Qur'an. On the basis of this information
Sprenger penned an article captioned "Foreign words occurring in the Qur'an"
which was published in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal for 1852.
1
The
treatment is sketchy but Sprenger took the opportunity to assail the Prophet by
remarking that he made a parade of these foreign terms and a number of other
peculiar expressions. Afterwards, in 1880 S. Fraenkel made a more serious study
of the "foreign vocabulary" in ancient Arabic poetry and in the Qur'an.
2
It is on the basis mainly of Sprenger's article and Fraenkel's work that
Theodore Noldeke made his remarks on the so-called foreign vocabulary of the
Qur'an in his essay on the Qur'an for the 9th (1891) edition of the Enryclopaedia
Britannica. Particularly he mentioned the above noted remark of Sprenger and
added: "It is the tendency of the imperfectly educated to delight in out-of-the-way
expressions, and on such minds they readily produce a remarkably solemn and
mysterious impression. This was exactly the kind of effect that Muhammad
desired, and to secure it he seems even to have invented a few vocables as ghislin
Oxix.36), sij;i'n Oxxxiii.7,80), tasnim Oxxxiii. 27) and salsabil Oxxvi. 18)."
3
Obviously
Noldeke here abandons even the decorum desirable in dealing with a historical
figure and world leader, not to speak of a Prophet or religious personage. He is
also absolutely wrong in saying that the Prophet invented the vocables
mentioned; for these very words are very clearly mentioned by both classical
Muslims scholars as well as the other orientalists as of foreign origin naturalized
in Arabic. The innuendo that such invention of odd words was made to impress
the imperfectly educated minds is also an unwarranted reflection on the
commercially advanced, intelligent and articulate Makkan community and their
leaders who were the immediate audience of the Prophet's deliverances and who
were not such simpletons and uninformed group of people as Noldeke naively
assumes them to be.
Besides taking Sprenger's line of personal vilification of the Prophet, Noldeke
also initiates the other lines of insinuation. Thus he says that the Prophet, who
was "indebted to the instruction of Jews and Christians whose Arabic - as the
Koran pretty clearly intimates with regard to one of them- was very defective",
"could not fully express his new ideas in the common language of his
I J.A.S.B., 1852, PP 109-114.
2
S. Fraenkel, De vocabulis in antiquir Arabum carminibu.r et in Corano pngrinir, Leiden, 1880.
3
countrymen" and had to make "free use of such Jewish and Christian words, as
was done, though perhaps to a smaller extent by certain thinkers and poets of
that age ... "
1
It is further said that "his use of these words is sometimes as much at
fault as his comprehension of the histories which he learned from the same
people - that he applies Aramaic expressions as incorrecdy as many uneducated
persons employ words derived from the French."
2
As instances Noldeke
mentions jurqan which, according to him means "redemption", is used by the
Prophet, "misled by the Arabic meaning of the root frq, 'sever', 'decide'," in the
sense of "revelation"; milia which means Word is used in the Qur'an in the sense
of religion; and ill!Jun which "is apparendy the Hebrew name of God, Efyon," is
used to mean "a heavenly book."
3
These remarks are all untenable and wrong. The assumption that the Prophet
borrowed ideas from Judaism and Christianity to make up his religion. is, as
shown in a previous chapter, totally wrong. It is also wrong, as shown earlier, that
the Prophet's knowledge of the Prophetic stories was faulty. Equally wrong is the
assumption that the Prophet received instruction from certain Jews and
Christians. The Qur'anic '4Jah (16:103) which Noldeke cites as indicating that the
Arabic of one of the alleged teachers of the Prophet was very defective does not
at all say so. It very strongly rebuts the same allegation of instruction by some
person made by the Makkan unbelievers and points out that the language of the
individual they hinted at was "foreign" ('aJamt), i. e. not Arabic. But Noldeke not
only misinterprets the '4Jah as showing that the Prophet had instructors but
further distorts its information by saying that the alleged teacher's Arabic was
"very defective". Also the assumption that the Prophet was unable to express his
ideas "in the common language of his countrymen" is totally unwarranted and
untenable. The literary Arabic of the time was very developed and expressive; and
a passage of the Qur'an which does not contain any of the alleged "foreign"
words is as much a masterpiece of composition as any other passage. How wrong
and unreasonably generalized is Noldeke's remark is clear from the fact that the
'4Jahs containing the alleged "foreign" words do not constitute even one per cent.
of the total volume of the Qur'anic text. Apart from this, the rest still remains a
masterpiece of Arabic literature and gives a loud lie to the absurd statement that
the Prophet could not express his ideas in his own language. (fhis is by way of
I Ibid., pp. 47-48.
2
Ibid., p. 48.
' Ibid.
rebutting Noldeke's allegation, not by way of admitting that the Prophet himself
composed the Qur'an). Also there is an element of contradiction in the
suggestion that the Prophet had recourse to foreign words and expressions in
order to express his ideas and at the same time in saying that he did so without
understanding their real meanings or in order to make a parade of his knowledge
and to impress his imperfectly educated audience. All this contradiction and
absurdity emanate from the basic mistake that the naturalized words used in the
Qur'an are considered "foreign". Noldeke in fact indirectly admits the fault in his
approach when he says, obviously in view of Fraenkel's study, that the Prophet
used such words of Jewish and Christian origin "as was done, ... by certain
thinkers and poets of that age." This is an admission enough that the words and
expressions under reference were naturalized Arabic words that had been in use
in the literary works of the time. His qualifying phrase, "though perhaps to a
smaller extent", used in respect of "the thinkers and poets of that age" is a poor
attempt to obscure this fact of naturalization.
Noldeke's interpretation of the words furqdn, miiiah and iilryun, which he thinks
to be Aramaic expressions incorrectly used by the Prophet, "as many uneducated
persons now employ words derived from the French," betrays his disregard of the
fact that when words of foreign origin are naturalized in another language they
undergo changes both in forms as well as in meanings. If the three words
mentioned are taken from Aramaic, these might equally have assumed modified
meanings when they were naturalized in Hebrew. The word furqdn is very much
Arabic and, as Noldeke himself admits, is derived from the rootjrq (J,;). In fact it
is the verbal noun of jaraqa, to separate, to sever. Its literal meaning is thus
separation, distinguishment, extrication or words to the same effect. It has been
used in the Qur'an seven times. At two places, 2:53 and 21:48, it is used to
denote the scripture given to Musa (and Harlin), i. e., the Tawrdh. At three places,
2:185, 3:4 and 25:1, it is used as another name for the Qur'an. Although b ~ t h the
T awrdh and the Qur'dn are revealed scriptures, in none of these five places the
word Jurqdn is used in the sense of "revelation" in the generic sense. Besides, at
the two remaining places, 8:29 and 8:41, it is used in quite different meanings.
Thus, at 8:29 it is said addressing the believers: "If you fear Allah He will set for
youfurqdn (success, victory, deliverance, salvation?)"; and at 8:41, "the day the two
hosts met" is called "the day of furqdn (victory, success, deliverance?)". It is thus
clear that the word furqdn has been used in at least two different senses in the
Qur'an, and not in the sense of revelation in general, as Noldeke says, obviously
without properly considering the 'qyahs in which it has been used. He says that the
word in Aramaic means "redemption". Others equally competent give it the
meaning of "salvation".
1
The two expressions are of course synonymous in the
sense of retrieval, reclamation, deliverance, saving of soul from damnation. But
the point to note is that in each of these meanings the sense of extrication and
distinguishment ifurqan in Arabic) is clear. The word "salvation" is derived from
the Latin salvare, to save; and "salvation" in the theological sense is defined as
"the saving of man from the power and penalty of sin, the conferring of eternal
happiness. "
2
Here also the sense of distinguishment from those who are not thus
saved or favoured is clear. The use of furqan ( separation, distinguishment) in the
Qur'an is thus very appropriate. It is used in respect of both the Tawrah and the
Qur'an because they both distinguish the good from the evil, the right from the
wrong. Similarly the sense of distinguishment is implicit in "victory", "success"
and "deliverance".
Even if the words furqan, millah and illryun are admitted to be derived from
Aramaic originals, it is important to note that they would have modified and
changed meanings after naturalization in Arabic. A very simple illustrative
instance from English is the word "catastrophe", which is composed of the Greek
terms kata, down, and strophe, turning. In strict literal sense "catastrophe" should
mean only a down-turning or decline; but in its acquired meaning it is used in a
much more serious sense of disaster or calamity. This latter word, calamity, is also
a naturalized one in English from the French calamiti, originally from the Latin
calamitas, calamitatis. More importantly, "catastrophe" is used by Shakespeare in a
very strange sense of "rear".
3
Again, the English word "category" (a class or order
of things, people, etc. having similar characteristics), is derived from the Greek
kategoria, meaning assertion, predication, accusation (kata, down, and agora,
assembly).
4
It is hard to see the link of sense between the Greek meanings and
English meanings. Hundreds of such instances may be cited from the English
language alone. It is difficult to assume that Noldeke and his like are unaware of
this very well-known linguistic phenomenon of naturalized words in any
language. Their hunt for "foreign" words in the Qur'an and their persistence in
1
See for instance A. J. Arberry, Tbe Koran Interpreted, Oxford University Press, 1983, p. 362; also his translation of the
word occurring in all the 'iiyab.r mentioned.
2
See for instance Tbe Cbamber.r Dictionary, 1998 edition, p. 1458.
' Ibid., p. 256.
4
Ibid., p. 257.
giving these words their supposedly original meanings in total disregard of theme
and context are thus indicative only of their prejudice and determination to
misinterpret the text of the Qur'an.
III. ARTHUR J EFFERY
1
S FOREIGN VOCABULARY ETC.
Subsequent writers who have dealt with the subject have generally adopted
and reiterated these Sprenger-Noldeke views. The most elaborate study in this
respect is, however, Arthur Jeffery's The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur'an.
1
His main
purpose is to demonstrate the influence of Judaism and Christianity on the
Prophet and the Qur'an. Thus he starts his introduction with the observation that
a distinct impression which is gleaned from a first perusal of what is called "the
bewildering confusion of the Qur'an" is "the amount of material therein which is
borrowed from the great religions that were active in Arabia at the time."
2
Proceeding from this standpoint and building upon the facts mentioned by
al-SuyU.ti Jeffery devotes the greater part of his introduction to an elaboration of
the contact made by the Prophet with the Jews, the Christians, the Persians, the
Greeks and others. Jeffery then makes three points. First, that "modern
scholarship has detected many more words of foreign origin in the vocabulary of
the Qur'an than were ever noted by Muslim investigators."
3
Also that they were
not quite correct in their identification of the origin of the words they dealt with.
4
Second, that the Qur'an "insists over and over again" that the religion which the
Prophet introduced was "something new to the Arabs."
5
Therefore it was not
likely, argues Jeffery, "that native Arabic vocabulary would be adequate to express
all its new ideas, so the obvious policy was to borrow and adopt the necessary
technical terms."
6
Third, that many of these terms had "already come into use in
Arabia in pre-Islamic times". Jeffery attempts to bring this fact in line with the
thesis of Judaeo-Christian influence by adding that such absorption of the
"foreign" words had taken place "partly through Arab tribes who had accepted
Christianity, partly through commerce with Jews, Christians and Persians, and
partly through earlier enquirers interested in these religions." He further stresses
that the Prophet had in the beginning only followed in the footsteps of these
enquirers. Jeffery then concludes by echoing the Sprenger-Noldeke vtews as
1
Arthur Jeffery, The Foreign Vocabulary of the .Qur'an, Baroda, Oriental Institute, 1938.
2
Ibid., p. 1.
' Ibid., pp. 37-38.
' Ibid., p. 32 .
. I Ibid., p. 38.
'' Ibid.
follows: "It is ... clear that Muhammad set himself definitely to learn about things
Jewish and Christian, and thus undoubtedly himself imported new technical terms
from these sources. It has been remarked not infrequently that the Prophet had a
penchant for strange and mysterious sounding words, and seemed to love to
puzzle his audiences with these new terms, though frequently he himself had not
grasped correctly their meaning, as one sees in such cases as .:>u} and ~ . "
1
It is unnecessary to dilate here on the fallacy of the theory of Judaeo-Ch.ristian
influence in general. Also the Sprenger-Noldeke fallacy of the Prophet's having a
liking for strange and mysterious sounding words and the inherent contradiction
in the proposition that he was obliged to borrow technical terms from Judaism
and Christianity because his native tongue was inadequate to express his new
ideas and the allegation that he used these terms without correctly understanding
their meanings, have already been pointed out. It remains only to point out the
other faults and fallacies in Jeffery's above mentioned statement.
To begin with, he is absolutely wrong in saying that the Qur'an "insists over
and over again" that the religion it presents "is something new to the Arabs." On
the contrary, it repeatedly asserts that it merely reiterates and confirms the
message delivered by all the previous prophets, particularly that contained in the
scriptures of Ibrahim and Musa, shorn of the corruption and alteration made in it
by human interference. In fact a failure or refusal to recognize this important and
repeated declaration of the Qur'an underlies the orientalists' persistent attempt to
prove the indebtedness of the Qur'an to Judaism and Christianity. The Qur'an
does not hide its link with the previous scriptures, not the least with the teachings
of Ibrahim, Musa and 'Isa Gesus). It only claims to rectify the faults and fallacies
of the prevailing Judaism and Christianity and to confirm and complete the
message delivered by all the previous Prophets.
Second, it is not at all true that the Arabic language of the time was inadequate
to express the ideas of the Qur'an. The so-called technical terms of Judaism and
Christianity will be found on analysis to relate only to peripheral matters. So far as
the basic ideas of monotheism, the Absolute Oneness of God, His Absolute
dominion over all the creation, His having no partners in any shade or form, His
having no son or incarnation, the resurrection of the dead, the principle of
individual accountability on the Day of Judgement, reward and punishment, life
in the hereafter, the fact of the Jews' and Christians' having deviated from the
I Ibid. pp. 38-39.
original and true message and their having tampered with the scriptures are all
related in simple Arabic, without the help of the so-called technical terms from
Judaism and Christianity, but in unmistakable and unambiguous terms. And, as
already mentioned, shorn of the 'qyahs containing the so-called foreign words, the
remainder of the Qur'an is still a masterpiece of Arabic containing all its main
teachings.
Third, Jeffery's attempt to twist the fact of naturalization and bring this in line
with the theme of borrowing from Judaism and Christianity is fraught with a
number of fallacies. (a) The so-called foreign words and expressions that had
already been in use are gleaned not from the writings of the "Arab tribes who had
accepted Christianity". Even the one or two poets who belonged to the Christian
Arab tribes did not write on any theological subject. (b) Nor could the words that
passed into Arabic "through commerce with Jews, Christians and have
any conceivable relevance to theological ideas. (c) Nor were the "inquirers"
mentioned interested "in these religions", i. e., Judaism and Christianity. On the
contrary these inquirers, the were seeking true monotheism away from and
being disgusted with the corrupt Judaism and Christianity they were aware of.
In fact Jeffery's researches go to show that the words he identifies as of
foreign origin had actually been naturalized and become regular Arabic words
before they came to be used in the Qur'an. He lists some 275 such words other
than proper names. "About three-quarters of the words in this list", as Watt
points out, "can be shown to have been in use in Arabic before the time of
Muhammad, ... Of the remaining 70 or so, though there is no written evidence of
their earlier use, it may well be true that they were already employed in speech ... "
1
And, in view of the fact that Arabic, Syriac, Ethiopic, Hebrew or Jewish Aramaic
are cognate Semitic languages having common origin in the original
Arabie-Aramaic mentioned above, they have many words in common and also
similar forms. It is thus difficult in many cases to say which of such common
words is derived from which of these languages.
IV. LuxENBERG's SYRO-ARAMArc READING AND
ToRREY's CoMMERCIAL-THEOLOGICAL TERMS
The latest work on the subject is The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran by one
Christoph Luxenberg, a pseudonym, who is said to be "a scholar of ancient
Semitic languages in Germany.
2
Adopting the line of Wansborough and the
1
Watt, Bell'.r Introduction ek:, op. dt., p. 85.
2
Published by Verlag Das Arabische Buch, Berlin, 2001.
"revisionists" in general who advance the absurd theory of gradual and later
evolution of the Qur'an out of a multiplicity of sources Luxenberg attempts to
show that parts of the Qur'an are derived from pre-existing Christian Aramaic
texts that were misinterpreted by later Islamic scholars who prepared the editions
of the Qur'an now in use. Each of the assumptions contained in this premise is
wrong and unsubstantiated. It is nowhere clearly stated or established who
prepared the "parts" of the Qur'an on the basis of pre-Islamic Christian Aramaic
texts, and when and where. If later Islamic scholars misinterpreted the parts of
the text, why did the Muslims who had hitherto been reading and using the
Qur'an not raise any objections to the alleged misinterpretations? How could later
Islamic scholars of a certain period all agree on such alleged misinterpretations?
How, again, could any alleged misinterpretation of the text constitute any
alteration and edition of it? Luxenberg and his supporters do not ask themselves
these questions, let alone advancing any specific evidence on any of these points.
The theory that the Qur'an is based on pre-existing Christian and Jewish texts
is old and untenable. Also, the attempt to ascribe Hebrew, Syriac or Aramaic
origins to some words or expressions in the Qur'an is nothing new. In fact
Luxenberg's main drive is towards this topic of the so-called foreign vocabulary
of the Qur'an, together with the supposedly original meanings of such words,
with no new fact or argument but only a repetition in effect and different forms
of the old and stale Sprenger-Noldeke assumptions and surmises. But just how
grossly mistaken Luxenberg is will be clear from one of his main arguments,
namely, that the word l{ur means in Aramaic "white" or "white raisins", and not
chaste and extremely beautiful damsels, as the Qur'anic commentators say, taking
bUr to be the plural of the Arabic word houri meaning chaste and beautiful girl.
Now, the word hUr occurs four times in the Qur'an, at 44:54, 52:20, 55:72 and
56:22. At each of these places it is of course mentioned in connection with a
description of paradise in which the righteous will be admitted. Thus 'qyah 44:54
states: ,:r.- J>""'! l'""'l.:>.-Jj J ... " ... and We shall marry them with hUr, having attractively
wide eyes." The same statement occurs at 52:20. 'Ayah 55:72, describing the fair
wives of the inmates of paradise, states: rl,.>:JI ..} ..:..o\J.,...W J.J> "They are bUr,
guarded in pavilions." And 'qyah 56:22 similarly states that the inmates of paradise
will have having attractively wide eyes." Thus in all the four places pur are
meant to be beings suitable to be companions and given in marriage; and they are
invariably described as having attractively beautiful eyes. Whatever one conceives
to be the origin of the word bUr, no sensible person having any regard to the
contexts and themes of the passages can suggest that bUr in these passages means
"white raisins."
Another of Luxenberg's arguments is that the description of paradise in the
Qur'an is similar to a fourth century Christian text called Hymns of P a r a d i ~ e and
that the Qur'anic word for paradise is derived from the Aramaic word for garden.
Yes, the word for paradise in the Qur'an is jannah or )annat, which in Arabic mean
garden or gardens. So even if the word is admitted to be of Aramaic origin,
neither the Qur'an nor its commentators have given it any different meaning.
Moreover, the similarity of the Qur'anic description of paradise with the Christian
Hymns of Paradise which might in its turn have been based on an even earlier
Christian text goes only to substantiate the Qur'anic claim that it corroborates
and completes the message of the earlier scriptures. Luxenberg and his advocates
should remember that mere similarity between an earlier and later description
does not automatically prove that the latter is copied from the former. His
attempt to ascribe to the Qur'anic words of Syriac or Aramaic origin their
supposedly original meanings is simply a manoeuvre to misinterpret the Qur'an
disregarding the important fact that words adopted and naturalized in another
language undergo changes both in forms and meanings.
Before concluding this section relating to the vocabulary of the Qur'an
mention should be made of C. C. Torrey's The Commercial Theological Terms of the
Koran.
1
Torrey is known as an advocate of what is called the Jewish foundation of
Islam.
2
In the present work, however, he concentrates on the commercial terms
and figures of speech in the Qur'an and suggests that it appeared .in an
atmosphere of commerce and high finance. Ever since its publication the work
has been made use of by many an orientalist to advance a socio-economic
interpretation of the rise of Islam. The trend has been carried to an extreme by
W. M. Watt. The fallacies and contradictions of his socio-economic interpretation
has been demonstrated at another place.
3
Here it may be pointed out that in so
far as the Qur'an is concerned, agricultural terms and imageries are no less
numerous and vivid in it than what is called the commercial-theological terms.
4
The whole worldly life is likened in the Qur'an to a cultivating field for securing
1
Published in Leiden, 1892.
2
See his The Jewi.rh Foundation of I.rlam, New York, 1933.
3
See M. M. Ali, Strat ai-Nabt and the Orienta/i.rt.r, 2 vols., Madina, 1997, chaps. IV and XXIV.
4
See for instance Q. 2:71; 2:223; 2:264-266; 6:136-138; 6:141; 13:3-4; 16:11; 18:32-42; 26:146-148; 34:15-16; 36:33-36;
44:25-27; 48:29; 50:7-11; 56:63-64; 68:22; 71:11-12; 78:16; etc.
provision for the life in the hereafter.
1
The doctrine of monotheism, the central
theme of the Qur'an, is brought home by repeated references to Allah's grace and
bounty in sending down rains from the sky and thereby enlivening the barren
earth and causing plants, fruits and corns to grow .out of it. Even paradise is
generally depicted as a well-laid garden with all kinds of delicious fruit-trees and
streams running through them. As Allah brings forth plants out of the earth, so
will He raise the dead from it on the resurrection day.
2
Even the act of
procreation and therefore the process of continuing human race is likened to
cultivating one's own field.
3
On the basis of such expressions and statements one
could state equally confidently that the Qur'an appeared against an essentially and
predominantly agricultural background. That would, however, be another
misleading conclusion; just as the attempt to identify words of foreign origin and
give them their supposedly original meanings is misleading and misconceived.
V. THE THEORY oF CoPYisT's ERRORS AND THE PROPOSED
EMENDATIONS TO THE TEXT OF THE QuR' AN
Another line of the orientalists' attempt to assail the Qur'an is to find faults
with certain words and to assume that they are copyists' errors, with the
implication that these should be rectified and emended. The foremost among the
protagonists of this plea for revision is J. A. Bellamy who wrote a series of
articles
4
on the subject in the Journal if the American OrientalS ociety. In these articles
he examines some twenty-two difficult words and expressions in the Qur'an
which he thinks are mistakes due to errors committed by copyists or mistakes in
the originals from which parts of the Qur'an were drawn. Therefore he suggests
emendations of these words or expressions, understandably by the orientalists
themselves. He concludes his last essay in the series as follows: "Non-Muslim
Koranic scholars agree that Muhammad, in one way or another, composed the
Koran, so they tend to lay all the problems of the text at his doorstep, usually
without considering that mistakes in the tradition of the text as well as in the
sources from which parts of the Koran were drawn might be at fault."
5
I Q. 42:20.
2
Q. 35:9; 50:11.
' Q. 2:223.
4
J A. Bellamy, "Al-Raqim or al-Ruqud'? A note on .riirah 18:9", Journal of the Ameritan Oriental Sodety, 1991, pp. 115-117;
"Fa-Ummuhu Hawiyah: A note on .riirah 101:9", ibid., 1992, pp. 485-487; "Some proposed emendations to the text of the
Koran", ibid., 1993, pp. 562-573; and "More proposed emendations to the text of the Koran", ibid., 1996, pp. 196-204.
' Ibid., p. 203.
It must at once be pointed out that Muslims do not at all accept the view that
the Qur'an is, "in one way or another", composed by Muhammad, peace and
blessings of Allah be on him. That view of the orientalists is in fact the point at
issue. Also, the statement that there might be fault "in the tradition of the text as
well as in the sources from which parts of the Koran were drawn" is a mere
conjecture which has no valid basis at all. Both these premises of Bellamy's are
merely an echo of his predecessor orientalists' views and assumptions that are
totally groundless. As regards the words and phrases, these have been explained
and interpreted by both classical commentators and modern lexicographers.
Bellamy has disregarded these explanations and interpretations and has drawn his
conclusions on faulty understanding or misinterpretation of them. In fact in his
last article on the subject published in 1996 he has himself modified his earlier
hypothesis that the mysterious letters at the beginning of some surahs are old
abbreviations of the basma/ah. Incidentally, the doyen of the nineteenth century
orientalists, Theodor Noldeke, had come up with an equally absurd theory that
the mysterious letters are abbreviations of the names of persons who wrote the
surahsl
Just how far-fetched and untenable are Bellamy's assumptions will be obvious
if we look at a couple of samples of his reasoning. Thus, the first word he deals
with in his article in the JAOS for 1993 is pa{ab at Q. 21:98 (
WJ.) .y 0JJ.,.V \... J ). He says that the ordinary meaning of the word is
"pebble" and that the meaning of "fuel" given to it by commentators and by
lexicographers like Al-Zabidi (Ttij a/- 'ams) and Lane is wrong. He also arbitrarily
rejects their view that the word is Ethiopic or Najdi or Yamani in origin. He even
rejects the suggestion of Ch. Rabin that the word might have been derived from
the Hebrew pa{bah meaning wood or wood-cutting. Then he says that the correct
word here should be pa{ab which "is the regular word in Arabic for
firewood and occurs elsewhere in the Qur'an ... It is easy to see how the mistake
occurred; in copying the scribe forgot to write the vertical stroke of the f,
turning it into a f."
1
Now, the statement: "in copying f.Jatab, the scribe forgot to write the vertical
stroke of(', is a pure surmise. It presupposes that there was the word in the
original from which the scribe is supposed to have copied; but no such original
containing the word in this place is in existence or referred to by the writer.
I JOAS, 1993, p. 564.
If it is argued that there was only one rare original from which the supposed
scribe allegedly copied it and which has been lost, then it is only reasonable to
assume that the scribe in question would have been especially careful to compare
his copy with the original each time he finished copying a page or a surah. Even a
single reading of what he wrote, without comparing it with the original, would
have made him aware of the oddity of the meaning of what he had written.
Moreover, since the Qur'an is not just an ordinary work concerning the author
and his prospective readers but a religious scripture meant to regulate the life and
conduct of a large community of believers, the alleged copying could only have
been accomplished under the auspices and supervision of a central religious
authority and the copy would have been thoroughly checked and re-checked and
meticulously compared with the original before its publication. Thus the surmise
of a copyist's error here is totally unreasonable and untenable, being based on an
arbitrary and unproved assumption that there was another word here in the
original, a further arbitrary assumption of carelessness on the part of the
supposed copyist and a total ignoring of how a religious scripture is usually issued
and circulated in any community.
As regards the alleged inappropriateness of the word };afab here in respect of
meaning, Bellamy is wrong in a number of ways. He seems to ignore the fact that
a word may have more than one primary meaning as well as secondary or derived
meanings. He rejects the meaning of "fuel" given to it by both classical and
modern commentators and lexicographers merely on the supposition that /;a{ab
cannot have any derivative meaning and should always bear the meaning of
"pebble". He seems to overlook that words or expressions otherwise odd but
used in authoritative works in particular senses to be understood from the
context only are accepted by the speakers of the language in question as bearing
those senses. The so many odd and apparently grammatically strange words and
expressions in the works of Shakespeare have thus found their places and been
given the particular meanings in the English dictionaries prepared after his time.
It is thus not out of lack of knowledge and understanding that the classical and
modern commentators and lexicographers have given the meaning of "fuel" to
f;as;ab here. In fact the word f;afab is just to the point here in respect of context as
well as meaning; and it would be equally sensible even if it is given its primary
meaning of pebble or crushed rock. The 'qyah 21:98 speaks of the
unbelievers/idolaters and tells them that they and what they worship (of idols and
images made of stone) will be pas;ab of hell-fire (jahannam). At two other places
(2:24 & 6:66) the Qur'an asks the unbelievers to be aware of the hell-fire of
which the fuel (waqud). will be men and stones (f;!Jarah). Some commentators
explain the stones to be the stone idols and images worshipped by the idolaters. It
is noteworthy that the subject-matter of the 'qyah under discussion, 21:98, is the
same and it reminds the unbelievers that they and what they worship of idols and
images will be ba.rab of the hell-fire. The sense will be quite clear whether one
gives l;as.ab its derivative sense of fuel or its primary meaning of pebble/ crushed
stone/rock, knowing that in the two above mentioned places the Qur'an
mentions stones as fuel of the hell-fire. It may be mentioned that some people
put pebbles in fire places to increase the heat of fire and to retain the heat for a
considerably long time even after the fire itself is extinguished. In China,
extremely heated pebbles or pieces of stone are used, instead of direct fire, in
cooking a delicate dish of fish. Fillets of fresh fish are placed in a cooking ware
with a measure of cold water and are brought on the dining table where clean and
extremely heated stone pieces are dropped into the cooking ware. The high heat
of the stones instantly makes the water boil and the boiling continues for several
minutes in which time the fish is perfectly done. It is then immediately served to
the guests along with the hot water which makes a delicious soup. The present
writer himself recently saw the preparation of this dish which was served to him
in a well-known hotel in Beijing. In view of this fact and the context of the 'qyah
in question, and also in view of our experience of lava turning into hard rocks,
the Qur'anic mention of stones and pebbles as fuel of the hell-fire is very
appropriate and significant ..
The second word Bellamy deals with in this article of his (jAOS 1993) is ummah
occurring in 11 :8 and 12:45. He thinks that the meaning of "while, time" given by
commentators and translators to the word in both the places, particularly the first,
is dictated by the context only but this cannot be its proper meaning. He even
disagrees with such European translators as Paret and Blachere who give the
same meaning of "time" or "while" to the word. Then he says that the meaning
here plainly must be "time, while", but this can be done only "by emending h t o ~
and reading amad, which means 'time, term, period of time" and which occurs
four times elsewhere in the Qur'an. He further says that the feminine ending to
the adjective ma 'dudah "would occur naturally to anyone reading ummah for am ad;
the copyist may even have thought he was correcting the text, but he may have
done it instinctively without being aware of it. "
1
This argument of Bellamy is similarly beset with the same fallacy and
unreasonableness as is his assumption of a copyist's error in connection with the
word l;a.rab mentioned above. But here Bellamy assumes a double fault on the
part of the supposed copyist. He is supposed to have misread the word amad as
ummah, and as he supposedly did so he even either corrected the adjective ma 'dud
by rendering it as ma'dudah or he might "have done it instinctively without being
aware of it." Thus does Bellamy piles one unwarranted assumption upon another
on the basically wrong surmise of a copyist's error. He fails to see the fault in his
own reasoning that if his supposed copyist was capable of correcting the adjective
by rendering it in the feminine form or if he instinctively made the correction he
would have paused to think if he was correctly copying the text from the original,
for he would have understood the meaning of what he was writing and would
have detected his error in writing ummah for amad. It cannot be assumed that he
simply knew how to copy from an Arabic manuscript and even to correct a
supposed error but did not understand the language! Rather, it is indispensable on
any copyist's or editor's part to be able to understand the text in a manuscript
before he can afford to copy or edit it.
The fact is that neither did the supposed copyist commit an error in writing
ummah for amad, nor did he arrogate to himself the right and duty to rectify a
grammatical error arising out of his erroneous copying, nor did he fail to
understand the meaning of the expression he was copying. Also, he did not find
any difficulty with the meaning of the word ummah here. The difficulty which
Bellamy finds arises, first, out of his failure to see that like many other words
ummah is used in the Qur'an in a variety of meanings and, second, his not having
considered even all the usual English meanings for it. Besides the usual meaning
of a nation, community, or a group of people, ummah is used in the Qur'an in at
least half a dozen other shades of meanings like species/ a person in whom all the
good qualities are combined (an ideal leader to be followed)
3
and a period of
time.
4
More important than this, in almost all standard Arabic-English dictionaries
I JAGS, 1993, P 564.
2
Q. 6:38.
J Q. 16:120.
4
See for these shades of meanings for the word , Majd al-Oin Ya'qub al-Firuziibiidi, Ba.ra'ir dhawi al-tamyiz.fl
ai-Kitdb ai-'A:jz (ed. 'Ali al-Najjiir), Beirut, n. d., vol. II, 79-80; and Al-1-!usayn ibn Mugammad
al-Diimaghiiru, .Qdmu.r ai-Qur'dn (ed. 'Abd al-'Aziz Sayyid al-'Ahl), Beirut, 1985, pp. 42-44.
the meaning of ummah is given as "nation, people, generation".
1
The last word in
this series, generation, means, inter alia, "average period in which (regarded as 30
years) children grow up, marry, and have children".
2
Ummah in 11:8 has this sense
of generation, i. e., a period of time; and the relevant part of the 'qyah may be
translated as: "And if We put off from them the punishment till a reckoned
generation, they will surely say: "What has held it back?" And since the 'qyah
speaks of punishment for unbelieving and sinful people, the word ummah or
'generation' is very apposite here. In a sense, Bellamy's problem relates to the
problem of accurately rendering the meaning of the Qur'anic text into English.
Let us now look at another expression Bellamy deals with in his latest article.
3
He finds difficulty with lamma (W) occurring in 11:111 (wa inna kullan lamma
la-:_Yuwaffrynnahum rabbuka a 'malahum ~ ~ ~ ..!..4J r-H y.J W '%' 01 J - "And surely each
one of them - thy Lord will pay them in full for their deeds"
4
He rejects the
grammatical explanation given for lamma here by the commentators and also by
some of the orientalists like R. Bell and G. Bargstrasser and then, building upon
the hint given by J. Barth that it would be better to delete the word altogether,
jumps to the conclusion that lamma got into the text here because of the copyist's
error. "The copyist's eye", writes Bellamy, "after he had written inna kullan strayed
back to v. 109, where we find wa-inna la-muwaffuhum na.rtbahum ~ t"'} _,.J l..i\J
(And indeed we shall give them their full portion). He proceeded to write
la-muwaffuhum, but caught his mistake after writing only ldm and mim, which he
then cancelled with a vertical stroke. This stroke was read by a later copyist as alif
after the mim, thus producing the meaningless lamma."
It is not necessary to discuss here the grammatical explanations given by the
commentators regarding lamma. It would suffice to point out only the faults in
Bellamy's assumption. First, his surmise that his supposed copyist's eye strayed
back to v. 109 is totally unreasonable; for there the clause in question starts with
inna, not inna; and it is not followed by kullan ( t"'} _,.J l..il J and '%' 01 J ) so that
there is no apparent similarity of letters or words to confuse the eye and make the
copyist proceed with the writing of the succeeding word la-muwaffuhum. Second, if
the copyist caught his mistake after writing only lam and mim, he would not have
simply put a vertical stroke over mim to cancel his mistake; he would either have
1
Hans Wehr, A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic (ed. J. Milton Cowan), Beirut, 1974, p.25.
2
O:iford Advanced Learner'.r Dictionary of Cumnt Englirh, ed. A. S. Hornby and others, third edition, 197 4, eighteenth
impression, 1983, p. 357.
' JAOS, 1996,00. 196-204.
4
A. J Arberry's translation, The Koran Interproted, Oxford University Press, 1983, p. 224.
put vertical strokes over both the letters or would have penned through both of
them or, likelier still, he would have modified mfm into ya' by a little broadening
of the line and putting two dots underneath the curve (.,..J/ .r-1 ). Third, the
assumption that a subsequent copyist committed a further error in misreading the
vertical stroke over mfm as a/if and thus writing lmma is all the more unreasonable
because, if he was a contemporary copyist, he would have used the original copy
to make his copy from or, if he was a later copyist, there would have been other
copies in circulation; for it cannot be presumed that only one copy of the Qur'an
made from an original copy continued to be used for a generation or so when
another copy was made from it! The assumption also presupposes that the
supposedly subsequent copyist was not only careless in writing but also incapable
of understanding the text he was copying.
Another expression which Bellamy finds fault with is wa qflihi at 43:88 (wa qflihi
ya rabbi inna ha'ula'i qaumun /ayu'minun- "And his saying: 0 my Lord, verily these
are a people that do not believe". He rejects the explanation of the case of qflihi
here given by the commentators and assumes that this is also a case of the
copyist's error. He says that this word should be read wa qablahu which the copyist
inserted as a note "to indicate that v. 87 was displaced and that v. 88 should be
put before it." He seeks support for this assumption in what he says that
orientalists "have always been willing to find displaced verses in the Koran" and
argues that a copyist, if he found he had made such a mistake, "could tear up the
whole sheet and start again from scratch, or he could cross out the displaced
passage and copy it again in its correct position, but both these procedures would
result in the loss of valuable papyrus or vellum. The sensible thing to do would be
to add a note at the head of the verse to indicate its displacement... In this case
the notation crept into the text and its real purpose was forgotten."
1
In this instance also Bellamy piles one untenable assumption upon another. In
the first place, the assumption that there was a displacement of the 'qyah in
question is wrong. The previous two 'qyahs speak about the attitude of the
unbelievers and the insertion of the 'qyah 88 in between the two, bringing 'qyah 77
after the present qyah 88, would disrupt the description and would be
incongruous. The 'qyah 88 refers to the complaint of the Prophet in view of the
attitude of the unbelievers and is thus just in its proper place. The expression ya
rabbi ( 0 my Lord) or rabbi (My Lord) is a form of address which occurs many
I Ibid.
THE SO-CALLED FOREIGN VOCABULARY ETC.
323
times in the Qur'an and it is almost invariably preceded by "he said" (qala) or
words to the same effect.
1
The expression wa qflihi (and his saying) is thus very
much appropriate here and in tune with the form of address "0 My Lord" which
follows it.
Bellamy says with regard to the word discussed just before the present one that
the supposed copyist cancelled his mistake by putting a vertical stroke over the
mistaken word. It is thus not understandable why the supposed copyist in the
present instance could not have cancelled his supposed mistake by penning
through the supposedly displaced '!ryah. It is a poor plea to say, as Bellamy does,
that the copyist did not do so because that would result in the loss of valuable
papyrus or vellum; for penning through a line or so would not have resulted in
the loss of the entire sheet of vellum or papyrus. It is also reasonable to assume
that a copyist, when he set to copy such a voluminous work, would be careful to
provide against such errors by having ready at hand materials for erasing or
wiping off words written mistakenly or for rectifying the error by pasting over it a
chit of vellum or papyrus with the expressions written correctly on it. It is also
not sensible to assume that the supposed copyist would have added "qablahu" at
the head of an '!ryah to indicate its displacement. Such a notation, if at all made,
would have been placed within brackets or such distinguishing marks as would
militate against its being mistaken as part of the '!ryah. Also, as in the case of the
word discussed before, in this case also the assumption presupposes the existence
of only one copy of the Qur'an when the supposedly subsequent copyist made
his copy, and further that the latter was careless enough to mistake the notation
as part of the '!ryah and ignorant enough not to understand the strangeness of the
expression he was copying - all of which presuppositions are totally
unreasonable and untenable. Most important of all, if the supposed copyist did at
all insert a notation to indicate the displacement of the '!ryah in question, he would
have used the expression qablahd, not qablahu; for '!ryah is feminine in gender and
would never have been referred to as hu.
It is not necessary to examine here the other words or expressions that Bellamy
cites to prove his theory. Suffice to say that his theory of copyists' or other errors
in the Qur'an needing emendation of them is totally absurd being contrary to
reason and the rules of grammar, context and meanings. The twenty or so words
and expressions he deals with are simply so many mistakes on his part.
1
See Q. 2:126, 260; 3:36; 3:40,41,47; 5:25; 7:151,155; 11:45,47; 12:33,101; 14:35,36,40; 25:30; etc. See also M u ~ a m m a d
Fuwad 'Abd al-Baqi, Al-MuJam al-MufahraJ li 'Alfi1:;. al:Qur'dn al-Karfm, under the word rabbi.
CHAPTER XIII
THE ORIENTALISTS' TRANSLATIONS OF THE QUR'AN
I. THE EARLIEST 0RIENTALIST TRANSLATIONS
The story of the translation of the Qur'an by the orientalists goes back to the
beginning of orientalism itself. Rather, orientalism in its modern sense may be
said to have started with the translation of the Qur'an. For, even b e f o ~ e the
launching of the Second Crusade, Christian thinkers realized the need for
combating Islam on the intellectual level and forging what P. K. Hitti calls "an
instrument of a pacific crusade".
1
Foremost among such thinkers were the
Archbishop Raymond of Toledo (1126-51) and Peter the Venerable, abbot of
Cluny (d. 1157). The former was instrumental in establishing a school of
translation at Toledo where important Arabic works on theology and science
were translated; while the latter, Peter the Venerable, commissioned the first
translation of the Qur'an in an attempt to refute Islam. This translation was made
in Latin and completed in 1143 by Robert Ketenensis of Chester, Hermann of
Dalmatia and two other associates. The initiatives taken by Archbishop Raymond
and Peter the Venerable resulted in the establishment of the first School of
Oriental Studies in Europe at Toledo in 1250, the College of Friars at Miramar
in 1276 for the study of Arabic in which Raymond Lull of Catalania played an
important part, and the resolution of the Council of Vienna in 1311 creating
chairs of Arabic at the universities of Paris, Louvain and Salamanca.
A manuscript of this first Latin translation of the Qur'an containing the
autograph of the translator exists in the Bibliotheque de !'Arsenal in Paris. This
translation, as already mentioned, was made professedly for rifuting Islam and was
as such not only highly prejudiced but distorted at many places. Its chief defect;._
was that it was not quite a translation but mainly a paraphrasing of the passages
of the Qur'an. According to Sale, "it deserves not the name of a translation; the
unaccountable liberties therein taken, and the numberless faults, both of omission
and commission, leaving scarce any resemblance of the original."
2
Nevertheless,
this work remained the sole or main translation of the Qur'an available to the
Europeans for about five centuries. It was given wide publicity during the
European Reformation Movement of the 16th century. Martin Luther, who
himself translated the Bible into German, wrote a preface to this Latin translation
1
P. K. Hitti, Hi.rtory of the Arab.r, 6th edition, reprinted London, 1958, p. 663.
2
George Sale, The Koran etc., London, 1734, preface (fo the Reader), p. V.
THE ORIENTALISTS' TRANSLATIONS OF THE QUR'AN 325
of the Qur'an; and four editions of it together with Luther's preface and some
other works of Christian propaganda were published by Thomas Bibliander from
Basel and Zurich between 1543 and 1550.
More important than this, it became the basis for translation of the Qur'an
into modern European languages. Thus Andrea Arrivabene made from this Latin
translation an Italian version, L' Alcorano di Macometto, which was published in
154 7. This was the first translation of the Qur'an in a modern European language.
Though Arrivabene claims to have made his translation directly from the Arabic,
"it is", as]. D. Pearson rightly points out, "clearly a translation or paraphrase of
the work of Robertus Ketenensis published by Bibliander."
1
"It is very incorrect",
writes a famous orientalist himself, "as it is from the Latin version of Robert
Retenensis (Bibliander)."
2
This "very incorrect" Italian translation of the Latin
paraphrasing was used in turn for making the first German translation, Alcoranus
Mahometicus, by Solomon Schweigger which was published from Nuremberg in
1616. And from this translation of the translation of the translation was made the
first Dutch translation, De Arabische Afkoran, issued anonymously in 1641.
Shortly following this Dutch translation came the first French translation (L'
Alcoran de Mahomet) by Andre du Ryer, who had been French Consul in Egypt,
which was published from Paris in 1647. Although he is said to have had a
considerable knowledge of both the Turkish and Arabic languages and although it
is said to have been made from Arabic, it is, as Sale puts it, "far from being a just
translation; there being mistakes in every page, besides frequent transpositions,
omissions and additions, faults unpardonable in a work of this nature."
3
Andre du
Ryer, though he lived in Alexandria for a considerable time, had a very jaundiced
notion of the Qur'an, as most of his sort had. In his French epistle to the reader
he thus says about the Qur'an: "The book is a long conference of God, the
Angels, and Mahomet, which that false Prophet very grossly invented; sometimes
he introduceth God who speaketh to him, and teacheth him his Law, then an
angel, anon the Prophets, and frequently maketh God to speak in the plurall, in a
stile [style] that is not ordinary ... He intituled this book the alcoran, as one would
say, the Collection of Precepts ... Thou will wonder that such absurdities have
infected the best part of the world and wilt avouch, that the knowledge of what is
contained in this Book, will render that Law contemptible."
4
Thus the motive of
1
Cambridge History of Arabic literature, Vol. I, Cambridge, p. 504.
2
S.M. Zwemer, "Translations of the Koran", The Moslem World, Vol. V, 1911 (pp. 244-261), p. 249.
' Sale, op. czi., p. VI.
4
Translated by A Ross, The A!coran qfMahomet ek:, London, 1649, p. A4.
du Ryer, like all his predecessors, was to discredit and refute Islam by making his
readers aware of what he called the "absurdities" in the Qur'an.
And it is from this grossly faulty French translation that the first English
translation was made by Alexander Ross and published from London in 1649,
just two years after the publication of the French translation. Ross very clearly
admits that his translation was an English rendering of du Ryer's French
translation, as the title of his work runs: The Alcoran of Mahome" Translated out of the
Arabique into French, f?y the Sieur du Ryer, Lord of Malezair, and Resident for the King of
France, at Alexandria. And newfy Englished, for the. satisfaction of all that desire to look into
the Turkish vanities. Like du Ryer Ross also aimed at exposing what he called the
"Turkish vanities." This phrase betrays, on the one hand, his and his
contemporary Europeans' dislike of the Turks because of their political influence
in Europe and, on the other, the common European misconception about Islam.
Ross's translation was, however, still worse than the French original which he
translated; for Ross, "being utterly unacquainted with the Arabic, and no great
master of the French, has added a number of fresh mistakes of his own to those
of Du Ryer; not to mention the meanness of his language ... "
1
The French
translation of du Ryer also fathered a version in Dutch by Glazemaker, published
in 1658
2
, another in German by Lange, published in 1688 and another in Russian
by Postnikov and Veryovkin. All these translations and versions were printed a
number of times throughout the seventeenth century and after.
Thus for more than five hundred years, from the middle of the 12th to the end
of the 17th century there were two basic translations of the Qur'an, the one in
Latin by Robert Retenensis (1143) and the other in French by du Ryer (1647)
from which other translations were made into Italian, German, Dutch, English
and Russian. Both these two basic translations and those that emanated from
them are, by the admission of subsequent orientalists themselves, not worth the
name of translations and are grossly incorrect and faulty, being vitiated by
omissions, commissions and transpositions. All these translations were also
professedly aimed at refuting Islam and the Qur'an. This declared purpose could
not be achieved if only because of the very faulty nature of these works; but it
served to give a distorted picture of the Qur'an and of Islam to the Europeans
and in that sense it served its purpose. After all, these translations were primarily
1
Sale, op. cit., p. VI. See also similar remarks by Zwemer who calls Ross's translation "faulty in the extreme." See The
Moslem World, 1927, p. 250.
2
Glazemaker, Mahomet.r A/koran, Door de Heer du Ryer uit d'Arabirche in de Franche taal gestelt, etc., Amsterdam, 1658.
~ .
aimed at the European readership, for the European imperial expansion was yet
to take place and none of the European languages had hitherto gained currency
among any non-European people to any noticeable extent.
II. THE TRANSLATION OF LUDOVICCO MARRACCI
AND ITS OFF-SHOOTS
Towards the end of the 17th century a new Latin translation was made by
Ludovico Marracci which was published at Padua in 1698.
1
Marracci was a
"Confessor" to Pope Innocent XI and the work was dedicated to the Holy
Roman Emperor Leopold I. The professed aim of the work was the same as that
of its predecessors, to refute and discredit Islam and the Qur'an; but it differed
from its predecessors in scope. It not only gave a translation together with the
Arabic text, but added explanatory notes and comments and introduced the
whole work by a companion volume entitled a "Refutation of the Qur'an", which
was a summing up of all the prejudicial views and distortions about the Prophet
of Islam and the Qur'an propagated by his predecessor orientalists. Even the
comments and explanatory notes were carefully selected from the unorthodox
and faulty Arabic commentaries so as to give the worst possible impression of
Islam. These were given in two forms: in the translation of almost every 'qyah
explanatory notes were inserted in the body of the translation which more often
than not distorted its meaning; and further comments for the same purpose were
added as footnotes. A second edition of this work, with additions and
annotations, was published in 1721.
Naturally this work was eagerly welcomed by the Christian enthusiasts and
evangelists and it was translated as well as made the basis for further translations
in a number of modern European languages. Thus, just five years after its
publication David Nerreter translated Marracci's translation into German which
was published at Nurenberg in 1703. And in 1734 was published the famous
English translation of George Sale which was based on Marracci's work.
2
Like
Marracci Sale introduced his translation by A Preliminary Discourse on Islam and
the Qur'an. This preliminary Discourse as well as the notes and comments were
based on Marracci's work. Although Sale states that he made his translation
directly from the original Arabic, there is no doubt, as Rodwell, a subsequent
1
Marracci, Alcorani textuJ universuJ Ex mmctoribus Arabum exemplaribus .rummafide, etc., Padua, 1698.
2
George Sale, The Koran, commonly called the Alcoran ofMobammad, Translated into Englirh immediately from the original Arabic;
with Explanatory NoteJ, taken from the moJt approved Commentator.r. To wbidJ ir prefi>.."Cd A Preliminary Discour.re, London, 1734.
English translator of the Qur'an, observes that "Sale's work mainly owes its
merits" to the research of Marracci. "Sale has ... followed Marracci too closely,
especially by introducing his periphrastic comments into the body of the text, as
well as by his constant use of Latinized instead of Saxon words."
1
Sale himself
guardedly alludes to his indebtedness to Marracci thus: "In 1698, a Latin translation
if the Koran, made I?J father Lewis Marracci, ... was published at Padua, together with the
original text, accompanied I?J explanatory notes and a refutation. This translation if
Marracci's, generalfy speaking, is very exact; but he adheres to the Arabic idiom too literalfy
to be easify understood, .... The notes he has added are indeed if great use; but his refutations,
which swell the work to a large volume, are if little or none at a l ~ being riften unsatiifactory, and
sometimes impertinent. The work, however, with all its faults, is very valuable, and I should be
guilry if ingratitude, did I not acknowledge myself much obliged thereto; but s t i l ~ being in Latin,
it can be if no use to those who understand not that tongue. ,,z
Thus Sale's work was essentially an English rendering of Marracci's with the
modification of what was considered to be his too literal adherence to the Arabic
idiom and the "unsatisfactory" and "impertinent" aspects of his "Refutation of the
Qur'an." Sale's work proved very popular in Europe and the English-speaking
countries and it went through a number of reprints and editions throughout the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, principally in 1764, 1774, 1795, 1801, 1812,
1821, 1824, 1825, 1826, 1836, 1838 and 1844.
3
The edition of 1844 contained a
memoir of the translator, Sale, written by R. A. Davenport and various notes and
comments from Savary's French translation.
4
In the late nineteenth century the
Rev. E. M. Wherry used Sale's work to issue his A Comprehensive Commentary on the
Qur'an: comprising Sale's translation and preliminary discourse.
5
And in this new and
enlarged form Sale's work was reprinted in 1896, 1900, and 1917. In 1921"it was
republished with an introduction by Sir Denison Ross and it remained in reprint
till at least 1973. Sale's "A Preliminary Discourse" was also translated and
published separately in several European languages. It was also translated into
1
J. M. Rodwell, The Koran: translated }rom the Arabic, the surah.r arranged in chronological order, with notes and index, London,
1861, preface, p. xxv.
2
Sale, op. til. pp. vi-vii.
' See for details of publishers and places of publication J. D. Pearson's "Bibliography of Translations of the Qur'an into
European languages", The Cambridge History ofArabic Literature, Vol. I., Cambridge, 1975, Appendix, p. 508.
4
See below for Savary.
5
E. M. Wherry, A Comprehensive commentary on the .Qur'dn: compri.ring Sale'.r lran.r/ation and preliminary di.rcour.re, with additional
nole.r and emendations, together with a complete index to the text, preliminary discour.re and nole.r, 4 vols., London: Kegan Paul, Trench
and Trubner, and Boston: Houghton Miffin, 1882-1884.
Arabic by the Protestant Christian Missionaries in Egypt and published under
title: Maqtzlat fl a/-Islam.
Meanwhile Marracci's as well as Sale's translation were in turn translated into
other European languages. Mention has already been made of David Nerreter's
translation of Marracci's work into German in 1703. In 17 46 Theodor Arnold
translated Sale's work into German.
1
And in 1751 M. Savary made a French
version of Marracci's Latin translation under the title: Le Coran, traduit de I.Arabe,
accompagne de notes, etc. The title page of one edition of this work states that it was
published in Makka in 1165 H.
2
The claim is evidently false and it was made no
doubt to impress its authenticity on the readers. The work proved, however,
almost as popular as that of Sale and it went through several editions and reprints
at Paris, Amsterdam, Rotterdam and London by various publishers in 1783,
1798, 1821-22, 1826, 1828, 1829, 1883, 1891, 1898, 1923, 1948, 1958, 1960, 1963,
1968 and even afterwards. Equally popular proved to be another French
translation made by M. Kasimirski which was based on Sale's translation and
which was published at Paris for the first time in 1840.
3
It also went through
several editions and reprints by various publishers in 1842, 1843, 1844, 1847,
1850, 1852, 1857 and 1858. A further edition passed through at least twenty
reprints well into our time, having been reprinted in 1948, 19 52, 19 59, 1970 and
1973. The 1970 edition contains a preface by Muhammad Arkoun. Kasimirski's
work was used by Garber de Robles to make the first Spanish translation which
was published in 1844;
4
and by L. ]. A . Tollens to make a Dutch translation
which was published in 1859.
5
Thus throughout the eighteenth and the greater part of the nineteenth
centuries translations of the Qur'an in various European languages emanated
mainly from the Latin work of Marracci and its alter-ego the English translation
of George Sale. Other and more or less independent translations did of course
appear during this long period. Mention may be made of these latter the German
translations made by D. F. Megerlin (1772), F. E. Boysen (1773), S. F. G. Wahl
(1828) and Dr. L. Ullmann (1840); the Hungarian translation made by Buziday
Szedmajer (1831), the Polish translation made by ]. M. Buczacki (1858) and the
1
Theodor Arnold, Der Koran, oder insgemein .ro gennante Alcoran des Mohammedr, etc., Lemgo, 1746.
2
Pearson, op.cit., p. 505.
' M. Kasimirski, Civtliration mu.ralmane. Oh.rervation.r hirtorique.r et crtique.r .rur le Mabometirme, traduite.r de l'anglair, de G. Sale, Le
Koran, traduction nouvelle Jaite sur le texte arahe, Paris, 1840.
4
Gerber de Robles, AI Koran, o doma.r civile.r, morale.r, politica.ry rcligio.ra.r de lo.r mu.ralmane.r, precedido de Ia 1Ji11a de Mahoma.
T raducio exadamente del original drahe por Mr Ka.rinir.rki, interprete de Ia emhajada jimce.ra en Per.ria. Ver.rion ca.rtellana, Madrid, 1844.
5
L. J. A. Tollens, Mahomed's Koran, gemlgd naar de Fran.rche t'Crtaling van Kasimirski, de EngleHhe van Sale, etc., BatmJta, 1959.
Swedish translation made by Frederik Crusenstople (1843). Nevertheless the
scene was dominated during this period by Marracci and Sale. The general nature
and spirit of all these translations may thus be understood by a little closer look
into the work of George Sale.
Ill. GLIMPSES OF SALE's TRANSLATION
The most remarkable thing about Sale is his stark hostility to the Qur'an and
Islam in which he surpassed all his predecessors, including Peter the Venerable,
the bishop of Cluny, who had sponsored the first Latin translation of the Qur'an
in order to "refute" it. In fact Sale struck three notes in his preface which he
captioned: "To the Reader". (a) He called the Qur'an an "imposture"; (b) he
considered all the previous translations "ignorant or unfair" which had given "too
favourable an opinion" about the Qur'an and (c) he stressed the need for an
"impartial" translation to "undeceive" those who had been influenced by the
previous translations and to "expose the imposture". He states: "But whatever use
an impartial version of the Koran may be of in other respects, it is absolutely
necessary to undeceive those who, from the ignorant or unfair translations which
have appeared, have entertained too favourable an opinion of the original, and
also to enable us effectually to expose the imposture; none of those who have
hitherto undertaken that province, not excepting Dr Prideaux himself, having
succeeded to the satisfaction of the judicious, for want of being compleat masters
of the controversy."
1
Sale's declared objective was thus to dislodge the Qur'an by what he implied as
his "impartial" translation. He also implied his complete mastery over the Qur'an
and Islam, accusing his predecessors of having lacked it and therefore having
failed to dislodge the Qur'an. The claim of "impartiality" is antithetical to the
objective of attacking and killing the Qur'an, and the claim of mastery over the
subject is belied by his numerous mistakes and faults, some of which will be
noted presently. And though he was sure that his translation would "expose" what
he called an "imposture", he was not without misgivings about its positive and to
him undesirable effects on the European readers. "They must have a mean
opinion of the Christian Religion, or be but ill grounded in it, " he stated, "who
can apprehend any danger from so manifest a forgery ... "
2
He also stated that the
Catholics, because of their "idolatry and other superstitions" had so far failed to
refute Islam. He confidently asserted: "The Protestants alone are able to attack
1
Sale, op. til, p. iii.
2
Ibid.
331
the Koran with success; and for them Providence has reserved the glory of its
overthrow."
1
With such an objective Sale could not just be impartial, nor was he a "master"
of the subject he dealt with. In fact his work itself was a grand imposture and
forgery. His work was not original but an English rendering of Marracci's work
which he guardedly indicated and which the subsequent orientalists amply
exposed. He made false claims about his sources and reference works just as
some of his contemporaries made false claims about his abilities. Thus Voltaire,
who just eight years after the publication of Sales' translation had poured forth his
venom against Islam and the Prophet in his Mahomet/ gave out that Sale had
spent "five and twenty years in Arabia where he had acquired a profound
knowledge of the Arabic language and customs".
3
This statement is palpably false
and, as R. A. Davenport points out, is contradicted by the "stubborn evidence of
dates and facts."
4
Sale was born in 1697 and he died in 1736, just two years after
the publication of his translation. So he lived for just 39 years and could not
therefore have lived twentyfive years in Arabia.
About his sources Sale states: " ... the manuscripts which I have made use of
throughout the whole work have been such as I had in my own study, excepting
the commentary of al-Beidawi and the Gospel of S. Barnabas."
5
The untruth of
his having manuscripts on the meaning and interpretation of the Qur'an is
established by the list which the executor of his will published after his death two
years afterwards when his library and collection were intact. The list was
published under the following title: "A Choice Collection of Most Curious and
Inestimable Manuscripts in the Turkish, Arabic and Persian Languages from the
Library of the Late Learned and Ingenius Mr. George Sale". These were
purchased in the first instance by the Rev. Thomas Hunt and they are now
preserved in the Bodelian Library, Oxford. The British Museum also has a copy
of the list of these manuscripts. "What is most significant", writes Sir E. Denison
Ross who subsequently edited Sale's translation, "is the fact that it contains hardly
any of the Arabic works and none of the commentaries which are referred to on
every page of Sale's translation of the Koran."
6
The fact is that Sale simply copied
1
Ibzd, p. iv.
2
Published in 1742.
' Quoted in Mohammad Khalifa, The SublimeQur'dn and Orienta/ism, London and New York, 1983, p. 65.
' Ibid
5
Sale, op. cit, pp. vii-viii.
6
Quoted in Al-Haj Hafiz Ghulam Sarwar, Translation of the Ho!J Qur-dn, first edition, p. viii.
and translated the titles of the authorities cited by his predecessors, mainly
Marracci in his Latin translation.
Similarly Sale reproduced all the faults and mistakes of Marracci in his
translation and notes; and as the intention was to overthrow the Qur'an, Sale
spared no means to distort its meaning. The distortion was done in a number of
ways, mainly, (a) paraphrasing; (b) deliberate mistranslation and also
mistranslation due to (i) omission of words or expressions in the text from the
meaning; (ii) lack of understanding of the correct meaning of some Arabic
expressions, (iii) the use of Christian theological terms and concepts, (iv) and
interpolation of words and expressions extraneous to the text and (c) faulty notes
and comments. The whole work is replete with these faults. It is not feasible to
mention and discuss all these within the scope of this chapter. Only a few are
mentioned below by way of illustration.
1
It may be noted that a single instance
often contains more than one of the faults indicated above.
To begin with Sale omits one of the two words, ai-Rahmdn and ai-Rahtm from
his translation of the first 'qyah in the first surah of the Qur'an, translating it as "In
the name of the Most Merciful God"; and does so in all the cases where this
compound phrase occurs throughout the Qur'an. This is an instance of both
omission and paraphrasing. Similarly the first phrase in the second 'qyah,
ai-hamdu-iiiidh, is translated as "Praise be to God", thus omitting the word ai from
the compound, which indicates comprehensiveness, as is pointed out by all the
exegetes, so that the true meaning of the expression should be: "All the praise or
all praises belong to Allah". The use of ai here is intended also to imply an
exclusion of all imaginary deities from adoration and praise. This omission of ai
from the translation and the consequent mistake in the meaning is committed by
Sale in hundreds of places where this and similar phrases occur.
A more characteristic distortion of the meaning is his translation of 'qyah 3 of
surah 2. He translates the clause: aiiadhfnayu'minuna bi ai-ghqyb wayuqfmuna ai-saidta
as: "who believe in the mysteries of the faith, who observe the appointed times of
prayer ... ". Here the word ai-ghqyb is purposely translated as "mysteries of the faith",
thus introducing a phrase of Christian theology and also interpolating the
expression "of the faith". There is no word in the text to stand for the expression
"of the faith"; and the meaning of ai-ghqyb is "the unseen", not mysteries. Similarly
the meaning of yuqfmuna ai-saidta is not "observe the appointed times of prayer"
1
See for a more detailed list ibid., Introduction, pp. ix-xx, from which most of the examples given here are reproduced.
but simply "perform or duly perform the prayer". Another instance of twisting the
meaning to conform to the Christian concept is Sale's translation of the clause at
2:87, wa 'atqyna 1sa ibn Maryam al-bqyyinat as "And gave evident miracles to Jesus
the son of Mary". The plain meaning of "a/ bqyyinat is "the clear signs" or "clear
evidences", not clear miracles, and elsewhere Sale himself translates the word as
such.
Even with regard to very simple words and expressions Sale distorts or alters
the meaning. Thus, for instance, the concluding clause of 'qyah 10 of surah 2, bima
kanu yakdhibuna, is translated as "because they have disbelieved" instead of
"because they used to tell lies". It cannot be assumed that Sale did not know the
meaning of the word ''yakdhibuna". Of course he did not know the correct
meaning of many a word and phrase in the Qur'an and definitely failed to
understand the meaning of many 'qyahs. An early instance is his failure to grasp
the meaning of 'qyah 17 of surah 2 to which he adds a note saying: "In this passage
Muhammad compares those who believed not on him to a man who wants to
kindle a fire, but, as soon as it burns up and the flames give a light, shuts his eyes,
lest he should see. The sense seems to be here imperfect, and may be completed
by adding the words, He turns from it, shuts his ryes, or the like. "
1
There is no
ambiguity or imperfection in the sense of the 'qyah. It speaks about the f?ypocrites
(munafiqun) and illustrates their position by a parable. The plain meaning of the
'qyah is: "Their likeness is the likeness of one who kindled a fire; then, when it
lighted all around him, Allah took away their light and left them in darkness, they
not seeing." There is here no question of the person who lights the fire turning
away his eyes or shutting his eyes as soon as the fire lights up. Allah takes away
the light and they are left in the darkness unable to see anything. The sense is
quite clear and there is no imperfectness in it requiring the addition of misleading
words, as Sale does.
A graver instance of his not understanding the Arabic expression and of
translating it according to his misunderstanding and then adding a still' more
preposterous note to it is what he does at 18:26. He translates the 'qyah as: " Say,
God best knoweth how long they continued there: unto him are the secrets of
heaven and earth known; do thou make him to see and to hear." He does not
know the meaning of the Arabic idiom bihi wa 'asmi' Cc:----1 J "< which
means "How best He sees and how best He hears", which is applied to Allah. Sale
1
See for this and for the other instances cited any edition of Sale's translation under the Jtirah and 'dyah mentioned.
thinks that it is an order to the Prophet to make Allah to see and to hear and then
adds a note to this expression saying: "This is an ironical expression intimating
the folly and madness of man's presuming to instruct God." (Al-Beidawi and
Jallaloddin). More remarkable is that he (or perhaps Marracci) falsely attributes
this explanation to the commentators al-Bai<;h1wi and Jahllayn. He also wrongly
writes Jallaloddin for Jalilayn. Needless to say that these authorities give the
correct meaning of the Arabic idiom here misunderstood by Sale and they do not
give the comment he adds! If he had even understood the context here, which is
the story of the Companions of the Cave, he could not have committed this
blunder.
Often the interpolations are quite brief consisting of a word or two but they
very effectively distort the meaning. Thus Sale translates the initial address at 2:21
as "0 men of Mecca" while the text is simply "0 men" or "0 mankind". Again, the
initial words at 2:143, kadhdlika ja'alnakum, is translated as "We made you 0
Arabians" though "0 Arabians" are nowhere in the text. Sale does these in order
to show that the Qur'an is meant for the men of Mecca or the Arabs. This he
does at many places. Sometimes quite different a meaning is given for a word
which changes the meaning of the 'qyah as whole. Thus the initial clause of 'qyah
2:148, wa li-kullin wijhatun huwa muwallfhd ( 4) y r ~ J js:J J ) is translated as:
"Every sect hath a certain tract of heaven to which they turn themselves in prqyer."
The simple meaning of the clause is "everyone has a direction he turns to". The
translation of the word wijhah as "a certain tract of heaven" is both strange and
misleading. A more serious type of mistranslation is, for instance, his rendering
of the initial clause of 'qyah 2:212, z!fYyina lilladhfna ktifarn al-hqyat al-dutryd as: "The
present life was ordained for those who believe not." No fair translator will ever
translate the word z!fYyina as "was ordained", i.e., decreed. It completely distorts
the sense and subtly introduces the wrong concept of predestination in the 'qyah.
The simple meaning of the term is: "was embellished or beautified or made nice",
not "ordained", with the implication of wrong doing on the part of the
unbelievers. The same word he mistranslates in another form while translating the
concluding clause of 'qyah 1 0:12 ' kadhdlika z!fYyina li al-musrifina ma kanu
ya'maluna ( . : > ~ I_,;LS" L. .:r-t.r---lJ.:.;..j d.l.l.S), as: "Thus was that which the transgressors
committed prepared for them". Here z!fYyina is translated as "was prepared",
which is far from correct, in order to twist the m,eaning and to attribute their
wrong-doing to an act of Allah. Another instance of this kind of distortion is his
translation of 'qyah 64:2 as: It is he who hath created you and some of you is
predestined to be an unbeliever; and another of you is predestined to be a believer; and
God beholdeth that which you do." The interpolation of the phrase "predestined
to be" twice in the 'qyah is totally unjustified. There is nothing in the text to give
this meaning. It is done simply to distort the meaning and to import the wrong
notion of predestination into it ..
Similarly the first part of 'qyah 4:100 , wa man yuhqjiru ft sbtiillahi yqjid ft ai- 'art}i
muraghaman kathfran (i_r.S' Wly c)> }:11 J ~ ....Ui J._,.,... J ?-4--1 ,y J ), as "Whosoever flieth
from his country for the sake of God's true religion, shall find in the earth matry
forced to do the same ... " Here the word muragham is completely misunderstood and
mistranslated as "forced to do the same", thus completely distorting the meaning
of the clause. Its true meaning is "dwelling places". Again, the meaning of the first
part of 'qyah 4:161, wa 'akhdhihim al-riba ( ~ ) I I'"""'..L.:.\ J), which speaks of the Jews'
taking of usury - "And their taking of usury", is reversed by translating it as "And
have given usury". A graver distortion is the translation of the clause wa
'aqracftumu-1/aha qarcfan qasanan ( ~ L.,;,; ....UI r.:.. ;\ J) of 'qyah 5:12 as "And lend unto
God on good usury" instead of the plain meaning "and lend a good loan to
Allah". The obvious intention of this distortion is to show that the Qur'an
tolerates usury.
There are hundreds of such mistakes and distortions throughout Sale's
translation of the Qur'an. Indeed it would require an independent work to discuss
most of them. Truly did E. H. Palmer, when he made a new translation of the
Qur'an,
1
remark that Sale's translation "can scarcely be regarded as a fair
representation of the Qur'an."
2
Nonetheless, Sale's translation remained in
circulation and went through so many editions and reprints and was translated
into several European languages mainly because it served the purpose of
distorting and vilifying Islam and the Qur'an.
N. TRANSLATIONS OF THE LATE NINETEENTH CENTURY: RODWELL AND PALMER
By the middle of the nineteenth century, however, the situation changed
considerably. The European nations had by then established their imperial
dominion over a number of Asian and African lands and had come into closer
contacts with the Muslim populations of these lands. A number of Christian
1
See below, text.
2
E. H. Palmer, The .Qur'an, Introduction; also quoted in Haji'- Gbulam Sanvar, op.cit, p. ix.
missionary societies had come into being and they had begun their Christianizing
activities in these imperial dominions in a very extensive and systematic manner.
These missionary activities were intellectually supported by a new phase of
orientalism. In fact many of the new generation of orientalists of the nineteenth
and twentieth centuries were from among the ranks of the missionaries and their
active supporters. The changed situation called for a change in technique and
approach. Hitherto the translations of the Qur'an and the orientalist writings in
general had been meant essentially for European readers and the main purpose
was to prevent the Europeans from being influenced by Islam. Now such
writings were to be directed to the Muslims and other conquered peoples. It
would therefore defeat the purpose to approach these peoples with an open
declaration of hostility and an intention to overthrow their system, as Sale and his
predecessors had done. A show of objectivity and impartiality became necessary.
Also it was essential to attack Islam not with a superficial knowledge but with a
more thorough knowledge of it. Above all, it was necessary to show not simply
the supposed faults in Islam but the superiority and reasonableness of
Christianity. All these factors gave rise to three new trends in the orientalist
writings. Henceforth almost all the orientalists kept their real intention within
themselves and declared at the outset of their writings their impartiality and
objectivity. Secondly, they displayed a better acquaintance with the sources and
had recourse to a more subtle twisting and misinterpretation of them. Thirdly, the
main argument they advanced was that the Qur'an and for that matter Islam was
made up of ideas and precepts borrowed from Judaism and Christianity.
This phase of orientalism in the mid-nineteenth century was heralded by a new
generation of orientalists of whom Aloys Sprenger, William Muir and Theodore
Noldeke are most important. The translations of the Qur'an that appeared in the
second half of the nineteenth and the twentieth centuries were greatly influenced
by the writings of such orientalists and reflected the trends mentioned above.
Of these translations the first deserving mention is that of the Rev. J. M.
Rodwell which was published for the first time in 1861 under caption: The Koran:
translated from the Arabic, the surahs atTanged in chronological order, with notes and index.
Rodwell was influenced by the writings of the above mentioned orientalists,
especially of Muir and Noldeke. In a rather lengthy preface Rodwell discusses
about the rise of Islam and of the Qur'an and refers his readers to the works of
Muir and Sprenger, among others.
1
More particularly he reproduces in the preface
337
Muir's op1ruons about the character and personality of the Prophet, his views
about the Qur'an and Qur'anic wa!ry and his theory of the Qur'an and Islam being
just an amalgam of bits from Judaism and Christianity.
2
In tune with him Rodwell
writes that the Prophet presented a doctrine which is "Judaism divested of its
Mosaic ceremonial, and Christianity divested of the Atonement and the Trinity -
a doctrine ... fitted and destined to absorb Judaism, Christianity and Idolatry."
Adding a footnote to this statement Rodwell writes: "A line of argument to be
adopted by a Christian Missionary in dealing with a Muhammadan should be, not
to attack Islam as a mass of error, but to show that it contains fragments of
disjointed truth - that it is based upon Christianity and Judaism partially
understood - especially the latter, without any appreciation of its typical character
pointing to Christianity as a final dispensation.
3
More importantly, he produced this translation by arranging the surahs in a
chronological order rather than the order in which they are put in the original
Qur'an, as the title of his translation clearly states. In thus arranging the surahs in a
new order Rodwell followed the lines indicated by Muir and Noldeke. The
obvious purpose was to give a confused view about the Qur'an and to show that
it consisted only of fragments of disjointed truth derived from Judaism and
Christianity. Another intention was to prove that Muhammad, peace and
blessings of Allah be on him, was its author. All the previous orientalists had of
course uniformly asserted this; but Rodwell's rearrangement of the surahs was
aimed at proving this from the contents of the Qur'an. In this design also he was
influenced by Muir. In many of his notes Rodwell even suggested that the
Prophet revised and recast the 'qyahs and inserted them into the surahs as he
thought proper and as the occasions demanded.
One effect of this awkward rearrangement of the surahs was that the work did
not attain popularity comparable in any way to that of the previous translations;
for educated Muslims, who were more or less conversant with the Qur'an, looked
on it with justifiable suspicion and dislike; and non-Muslims, who mostly did not
know Arabic, found it hard to take it as a straightforward and easily
understandable English rendering of the Qur'an. It was also necessary for an
1
Rodwell, Tbe Koran,etc., London, 1861, preface, p. xxv.
2
The theory of Jewish origin of the Qur'an and Islam was propounded by Abraham Geiger in his work: Wa.r bat
Mobammed au.r dem Judenthem aufgenommen?, Bonn, 1833; but it was expanded into a Judaeo-Christian origin with much
forced arguments and assumptions by Muir in his Life of Mahomet. The main faults and fallacy of the theory have been
pointed out in M. M. Ali, op. cit., pp. 253-290.
' Ibid., p. xxii.
inquisitive reader to have at hand the original Qur\1n as well as Rodwell's book if
he wanted to compare the meaning of a surah in the latter with the text in the
original Qur'an. Even as an academic exercise it was futile; for the Qur'an is an
integrated whole which ought not to be disturbed and because the surahs cannot
just be arranged chronologically. It is well known that the first five 'qyahs of surah
96 which Rodwell places as the first were the first revelation. The rest of the surah
was revealed at a later date. Also, most of the other surahs were revealed in parts
at different times. There is no agreement among scholars as to the absolute
chronological order of the different passages of the different surahs. Rodwell is
quite aware of this fact. Thus in his note to 'qyah six of surah 96, which is his first
surah, he writes: "This, and the following verses, may have been added at a later
period, though previous to the flight." Similarly in his note to 'qyah 11 of surah 74
(ai-Muddalhlhir) which he places as his second surah he says: "This portion of the
surah seems to be of a different date from the first seven verses, though very
ancient...''
1
Again in his note to 'qyah 31 of the same surah he states: "This and the
three following verses wear the appearance of having been inserted at a later
period ... perhaps at Medina.''
2
Again in his note to sural a i - F a t i ~ a h which is the
first surah of the Qur'an but which he places as the eighth he says: "This sura,
which Noldeke places last, and Muir sixth, in the earliest class of Meccan suras,
must at least have been composed prior to Sura xxxvii, 182, where it is quoted,
and to sura xv, 87, which refers to it. And it can scarcely be an accidental
circumstance that the words of the first, second, and fifth verses do not occur in
any other sura of the first Meccan period as given by Noldeke, but frequently in
those of the second, which it therefore, in Noldeke's opinion, immediately
precedes. But this may be accounted for by its having been recast for the
purposes of private and public devotion by Muhammad himself, which is the
meaning probably of the Muhammadan tradition that it was revealed twice."
3
The suggestions that 'qyas 31-34 of sural ai-Muddalhlhir had been perhaps
inserted at Madina and that portions of sural a i - F a t i ~ a h had been recast by the
Prophet himself for purposes of "private and public devotion" are wrong and
mischievous, but the point to be noted is that Rodwell himself admits that in
most cases different parts of a single surah were revealed at different times and
that even among the orientalists themselves there was no agreement on the
1
RodwelL The Koran, second edition, 1876, p. 4, note 4, quoted in Hafiz Ghulam Sarwar, op. cit., p. xxiv.
2
Ibid
' Ibid.
matter. Thus the rearranging of surahs on the basis of their supposed dates of
revelation is both unrealistic and futile. Even with regard to a book by an author
the different chapters might have been written at different dates but they might
not have been placed in the book in the order of their dates of composition. To
rearrange the chapters of that book in the order of their known and supposed
dates of composition and then to make a translation of it and present it to the
public as a translation of that particular book by that particular author would be
ridiculous and a height of folly. Rodwell's only purpose in doing so with regard
to the Qur'an is to confuse and to make room for indulging in all sorts of
assumptions and speculations calculated to impart a distorted and unfavourable
impression about the Qur'an and Islam.
Even his translation as a whole is geared to that objective. He repeats at many
places the same mistakes as committed by Sale. Thus like Sale, Rodwell fails to
understand the meaning of the idiom 'ab[ir bihi wa 'asmi' in the 'qyah 18:26 and
translates it as "look thou and hearken unto him"! Again, like Sale, Rodwell
mistranslates the 'qyah 40:35 without regard to the stops as: "Those who gainsay
the signs of God without authority having come to them, are greatly hated by
God and by those who believe." The correct meaning is: "Those who dispute
about the signs of Allah without any authority having come to them, very hateful
is that in the sight of Allah and the believers."
And though Rodwell avoids unnecessary paraphrasing in the translation he
makes it up by his explanatory notes. Thus, with regard to the first six 'qyahs of
surah 30 (ai-RUm) which he places as his 74th, he attempts to belittle the prophecy
about the victory of the Romans and says in his note: "The Muhammadans appeal
to this passage as a clear proof of the inspiration of their Prophet. But it should
be borne in mind that the vowel points of the consonants of the Arabic word for
defeated in verse 1, not being originally written, and depending entirely on the
speaker or the reader, would make the prophecy true in either event, according as
the verb received an active or passive sense in pronunciation. The whole passage
was probably constructed with the view of its proving true in any event."
1
The
whole passage was not constructed with the view of its proving true in any event;
nor was it left to the discretion of the speaker or reader to give the verb an active
or passive sense in pronunciation. The 'qyahs were recited and given out
immediately on their revelation in the same pronunciation as they have ever been
1
Rodwell, Tbe Koran, second edition, p. 217, quoted in ibid, p. xxv.
written, whether the vowel points were there or not. Also the unbelieving
Quraysh leaders, on hearing these 'ljyahs, challenged the prophecy and betted to
give one hundred camels if it ever came true. They ultimately lost the bet when
the prophecy came true by the victory of the Romans a few years afterwards.
Moreover, even if the verb in the first 'ljyah is given an active form it would be,
according to Rodwell's own translation, a senseless and untrue statement running
as: "The Greeks have defeated, In a land hard by: But after their defeat they shall
defeat their foes." If, on the other hand, the verbs in both the 'ljyahs were changed
respectively from the passive into active and vice versa, the sense would be
unhistorical, for the Greeks (Romans) did not first gain a victory and were not
afterwards defeated.
1
The prophecy would not be true in either event, as Rodwell
attempts to mislead his reader.
Similarly he makes a very misleading and false statement in his note to 'ljyah
17:110 saying that the Prophet originally intended to combine the name
ai-Raf?man with Allah but fearing that these would be supposed by the
unbelievers to be two gods he dropped the name ai-Ral;man from the subsequent
surahs.
2
How untrue the statement is may be seen from the fact that the formula
Bismillah ai-Raqman ai-Raljtm appears at the head of the 46 surahs which he places
and translates after this surah, numbering it as 67 in his order of arrangement.
Not only this. The name ai-Raqman occurs at 'ljyah 27:30 ( a i - N a m ~ which surah he
places as his 68th; at 'ljyah 2:41 (Fu[!ilat) which he places as his 71 st; at 'ljyah
13:30 (ai-Ra'd) which he numbers as surah 90; and at 'ljyah 2:163 (al-baqarah),
which he places as his 91st. At all these places he translates the name as the "God
of Mercy" or "the Compassionate". The fact is that in his eagerness to vilify the
Qur'an and the Prophet Rodwell fails to see the inconsistency and falsity of his
statement.
The next English translation of the Qur'an appearing in the nineteenth century
was that by E. H. Palmer published in 1880 by the Oxford University in the series
Sacred Books of the East edited by F. Max Muller. The translation is in two volumes
constituting the sixth and ninth volume of the series. Max Muller did not know
Arabic and he had no hand in the translation, his name being attached to it simply
as the general editor of the series. The first volume contains the translation of
surahs 1-16 and the second volume that of the rest. In an introduction occupying
pages ix to lxxx Palmer gives an account of the rise of Islam and the
1
See al-Tabari, Tafrir, Pt. 21, p. 19.
2
Rodwell, The Koran, second edition, p. 174, quoted in f;Iafiz Ghulam Sarwar, op. dt., p. xxvi.
circumstances of the people in whose midst the Qur'an was revealed. This is
followed by an "Abstract of the contents of the Qur'an" occupying pages lxxxi -
cxviii. It was reprinted in 1900 with an introduction by R. A. Nicholson in "The
World's Classics" series and also subsequently several times in Britain, the U.S. A.
and India.
The most important thing to note in connection with this translation is that
Palmer, unlike his predecessors, considered the language of the Qur'an as "rude
and rugged" and "not elegant in the sense of literary refinement". He also
thought that to "render it by fine or stilted language would be quite as foreign to
the spirit of the original." He further stated: "I have rendered it word for word.
Where a rugged or commonplace expression occurs in the Arabic I have not
hesitated to render it by a similar English one, even where a literal rendering may
perhaps shock the reader."
1
With such an impression about the Qur'an and the intention to render it
literally even if it shocked the reader, it is easy to see that his translation would fail
to be fair to the meaning and spirit of the Qur'an. In fact the method of literal
translation was adopted to distort the meaning as far as possible. Palmer also
failed to grasp the meaning of many an Arabic idiom or purposely misconstrued
it to show the supposed rudeness of the language. For instance he translates '4Jah
2:273 J 4_,...;, 'Y .UJI j.... .j .:.r..ill ) as: "The poor who are
straitened in God's way and cannot knock about the earth" and then justifies his
shocking phrase "knock about the earth" as the meaning of the Arabic idiom
darban fl al'arrj by a note in which he says: "I must again remind the reader of the
remarks in the Introduction that the language of the Qur-an is really rude and
rugged, and that although the expressions employed in it are now considered as
refined and elegant, it is only because all literary Arabic has been modelled on the
style of the Qur-an."
2
Thus, in order to prove the supposed rudeness of the
language of the Qur'an Palmer casts aspersion on the Arabic language as a whole
and makes the language of his translation inelegant and rude.
Similarly he translates the '4Jah 7:89 J J>-.!4 j <fl. J as :
"0 Lord, open between us and between our people in truth, for Thou art the best
of those who open" and then in his note to this expression he says that it means
"give us a chance."
3
Here Palmer completely misunderstands and misconstrues
1
E. H. Palmer, The Qur'dn, Introduction, p. lxxvii.
2
Palmer, The Qur'dn, vol. I, p. 43.
' ldid., p. 149.
the Arabic idiom. Ijtal; f?ynana is an idiom meaning "Judge between us", not "give
us a chance", as he so confidently asserts. The meaning of the idiom is very
clearly given as such even in Lane's Lexicon
1
which was published at least a decade
before Palmer penned his translation. He should also have noted that the prayer
in question was that of Prophet Shu'ayb, peace be on him, after his people had
finally rejected him. He could not simply have asked for another "chance" at that
point of time in his mission. Palmer should have also noted that the adverbial
expression bi ai-J;aqq - "in truth" - is applicable to judgement and not to giving a
chance.
Another instance of his attempt to show the supposed rudeness of the
language of the Qur'an is his translation of the 'qyah 9:61-
..:.r..ill '-...>-) J .r.--y...U ..:r' Y- J ill4 ..:r' Y- ~ .r.?'- 0 ~ ( J.i 0 ~ ( Y' 0) _,A; J .r.ll 0 J ~ Y- .:.r..lll r+" J
r-JI yl.i.. ~ ill\ Jr J 0 J ~ y. .:.r..liiJ ~ l y l ~
as: "And of them are some who are by the ears of the Prophet, and say, 'He is all
ear.' Say, 'An ear of good for you!' he believes in God, and believes in those who
do believe; but those who are by ears with the Apostle of God, for them is
grievous woe.'' In a note to this 'qyah he says that the expression "by the ears with
the Prophet" means to "reproach or quarrel with" him and adds: "I have used the
old-fashioned English expression in order to preserve pun upon the word ear,
which exists in the original.''
2
It needs only to be pointed out that in the
old-fashioned English "pun upon the word ear" might mean to "reproach or
quarrel", but the original Arabic word yu'dhUna at the beginning as well as at the
end of the 'qyah, which Palmer translates as "are by the ears", has nothing to do
with "ear" ( 'udhun ). It is an imperfect verb in the third person plural from 'adhd,
form IV from the root 'adf?y, and not from the root 'udhun or ear. The meaning
of the verb is "they hurt or cause bodily pain". Palmer here commits a grave
mistake and in his attempt to ridicule the Qur'an only renders his translation and
the note ridiculous.
Indeed, to his rudeness Palmer adds carelessness. Thus in his translation of
'qyah 12:65 the phrase wa namiru 'ahlana ( and we will provide corn for our
families) are left out; and the last clause of the following 'qyah (12:66) is carelessly
translated as : "God over what ye say has charge", thus changing the expression
naqulu (we say) into taqulu (you say).
3
And in translating sura! ai-Naf;l (no. 16) he
1
Lane's Le:ximn was published in the late 1860's.
2
Palmer, op.ctl., Vol. I, p. 181.
3
Palmer, op.ctl., vol. I, p. 226.
343
omits to translate its 'qyah 85.
1
At times he skips over an imperative joining the
clause that follows with the previous clause in such a way as gives a totally
different sense to the 'qyah as a whole. Thus he translates 'qyah 29:46 as: "And do
not wrangle with the people of the Book, except for what is better; save with
those who have been unjust amongst them and who scry, "We believe in what is
sent down to you. Our God and your God is one, and we are unto Him
resigned. "
2
Here Palmer skips over the imperative wa qulu - "and you say" -
replacing it with "who say", thereby making the clause that follows a saying of
those who "have been unjust amongst" the People of the Book. Palmer here not
only changes the meaning of the whole 'qyah, he also fails to notice the inherent
absurdity that if any group of the people of the Book said: "We believe in what
is sent down to you etc." there would have been no question of wrangling with
them. Like his predecessors Sale and Rodwell, Palmer also mistranslates the 'qyah
40:35 as: "Those who wrangle concerning the signs of God without any authority
having come to them are greatly hated by God and by those who believe."
3
These are only a few instances by way of illustration. There are hundreds of
such mistakes, omissions and mistranslations throughout the work.
V. TRANSLATIONS OF THE TwENTIETH CENTURY: BELL AND ARBERRY
Coming to the twentieth century we have two notable orientalist English
translations of the Qur'an, one by Richard Bell and the other by A. J. Arberry.
They are described by an English scholar as "worthy successors to Rodwell and
Palmer."
4
Bell was truly a successor to Rodwell; for, like the latter, Bell also made his
translation by rearranging the surahs according as he thought to be their
chronological order. The full title of Bell's translation is: The Qur'an: Translated with
a critical rearrangement of the Surahs. It is in two volumes and was published for the
first time in 1937-39 and was reprinted in 1960. Bell carried to the extreme
Rodwell's assumption about the Prophet's having carried out revisions in the
Qur'an and he subsequently elaborated these assumptions in an independent
work entitled Introduction to the Qur'an.
5
As regards the translation itself it is geared
1
Palmer, op.cit.,vii I., p. 259.
2
Ibid., Vol. II, p. 122.
' Ibid., Vol. II, p. 194.
4
Cambndge History ofArabic Literature, Vol. I., p. 505.
' Edinburgh University Press, 1953. Subsequently edited by W.M. Watt and reprinted in 1970. See also supra, pp. 279-304.
to the same objective of imparting a distorted and unfavourable impression about
the Qur'an and contains numerous mistranslations and misinterpretations.
Arberry's translation also was in two volumes and published for the first time
in 1955.
1
It was republished in "The World's Classics" by the Oxford University
Press in 1964 and still subsequently published as a paperback volume in 1983 and
afterwards. Arberry avoids the word "translation" and entitles his work :The Koran
Interpreted. "I have called my version an interpretation", says he in his
introduction, "conceding the orthodox claim that the Koran (like all other literary
masterpieces) is untranslatable ... "
2
He may be considered a successor to Palmer
because, like the latter he pays special attention to the language of the Qur'an
though, unlike Palmer, he considers it sublime and inimitable. He also very
categorically says that "the Koran as printed in the twentieth century is identical
with the Koran as authorized by 'Uthman more than 1,300 years ago", and that its
"sublime rhetoric" and the "richly varied rhythms" constitute "the Koran's
undeniable claim to rank amongst the greatest literary masterpieces of mankind ....
the Koran is neither prose nor poetry, but a unique fusion ofboth."
3
Like Palmer,
however, he attempts to give a literal translation and to reproduce the rhythm in
it. He says: "I have striven to devise rhythmic patterns and sequence-groupings in
correspondence with what the Arabic presents, paragraphing the grouped
sequences as they seem to form original units of revelation."
4
The last clause of the above statement of Arberry's indicates the format of his
translation. Thus he groups together a number of consecutive 'qyahs in a surah as a
passage and gives their translation in a sequence. This is what he calls "grouped
sequence". For instance, the first four 'qyahs of surat ai-Fatibah is translated as a
passage, and the rest is translated as another passage. Similarly the first four 'qyahs
of surat ai-Baqarah is translated as a passage, 'qyahs five to nine as the next passage,
'qyahs 10 to 14 as another passage, and so on. This format he adopts throughout
his translation. Although this method does not disrupt the meaning of the surah as
a whole, it makes it difficult for a reader not having a certain amount of
knowledge in Arabic to identify how much of a passage of the translation
represents the meaning of each 'qyah. This is more so because he has not followed
the standard numbering of the 'qyahs but that of Flugel which is somewhat
different. Arberry is also definitely wrong in his assumption that the 'qyahs he
1
Allen &Unwin Ltd, London, 1955.
2
A. J. Arberry, The Koran Interpreted, paper back edition, Oxford University Press, 1983, Introduction, p. xii.
' Ibid., pp. ix, x.
4
Ibid., p. x.
groups together as a passage or "the grouped sequences" as he calls them, "seem
to form original units of revelation." His translation, though an improvement
upon that of Palmer, contains many of the mistakes and misinterpretations
characteristic of the orientalists. It is also difficult to understand many of the
passages of the translation independently of the Arabic text. Some of these
defects and mistakes may be mentioned under the following headings:
(a) Employment of Christian theological terms that distort the real
meaning:
Thus he translates the phrase yawm al-dfn in the fourth 'qyah of the first surah
as "the Day of Doom" which is not quite correct a translation. Again he
translates the wordfurqtm at 2:53 as "salvation",
1
though the clear meaning of it is
"distinguishment", "differentiation", "separation" and the like. Arberry is clearly
influenced by Bell who wrongly suggests a Syriac origin for the word and gives
the meaning of "salvation" to it.
2
Arberry very consciously gives this meaning to
the word wherever it occurs in the Qur'an, though it distorts the meaning at each
place. Thus he translates the expression yawm aljurqdn at 8:41 as "the day of
salvation" and the title of surat ai-Furqdn (no. 25) as "Salvation", and also the same
word in its first 'qyah, where it clearly means the Qur'an, as "Salvation".
3
Similarly
he gives a twist to the meaning of huwa alladhf 'qyyadaka bi-nasrihi !.l-4f (,?.l.JI y.)
at 8:62 as "He has confirmed thee with His help".
4
The plain meaning is He has
"supported or strengthened you". The word "confirm", though it may sometimes
be used in the sense of strengthening or supporting, is not quite appropriate here.
Equally purposeful is his translation of the first part of 'qyah 14:27,
yuthabbitu-1/ahu al/adhfna 'amanu bi a/-qaw/ a/-thdbiti J_,Al4 .:r..UI ..J.ll )as
"God confirms those who believe with the firm word."
5
The clear meaning of the
word yuthabbitu is "he establishes or makes firm". The term "confirmation" has a
very wellknown sense in Christian theology signifying "the rite by which people
are admitted to full communion in many Christian churches", and to "confirm"
means "to put through a ceremony to admit to full religious communion."
6
Again,
a very significant twist is given in translating the initial clause of 16:102, qui
1
A. J. Arberry, The Koran Interpreted, Oxford University Press, 1983, p. 3.
2
R. Bell, The Origin of'I.rlam in it.r Chri.rtian Environment, London, 1926, p. 120.
' Arberry, op. tit, pp. 173, 362.
4
Ibid., p. 176.
' Ibid., p. 249.
' Chamber.r Diftionary, New Edition, 1999, p. 344.
nazzalahu al-quds min rabbika ,y <..f'J.AJI [JJ .J) Ji )as "Say: The Holy Spirit
sent it down from thy Lord."
1
The term ritp al-quds is another name for the angel
Jibril and he is meant here. But Arberry gives a double twist here. He capitalizes
the two initial letters of the two words, H and S, so as to make it conform to the
Christian concept of the Holy Spirit, and he translates nazzala as "sent down"
though it also means "brought down" and which is the sense here, especially as
the phrase "form your Lord" follows it.
(b) Direct distortion of the meaning:
A glaring instance of this type is his translation of the first part of 'qyah 7:157
( ......... ,./YI J.,..... )I .:r..UI) as: "those who follow the Messenger, the Prophet of
the common folk, whom they find written with them in the Torah and the Gospel,
bidding them to honour and forbidding the dishonour ... "
2
Here he wilfully translates the
phrase ai-Nabt al-umm[y as "the Prophet of the common folk" in order to conceal
the significant fact that this 'qyah clearly speaks of him as an unlettered person,
the meaning of 'umm[y being unlettered. He repeats the same mistranslation at
the following 'qyah where this very phrase occurs.
3
At both these places he also
disregards the grammatical rule, the phrase being in the form of sifah and mawsuj;
the word 'umm[y being a description of the Prophet and in the singular. But
Arberry makes the translation in the genitive sense, saying "the Prophet of the
common folk", which is totally wrong. He also cleverly uses the term "folk" which
is used for both singular and plural; and he uses it in the plural sense and similarly
mistranslates the word 'umm[y at the other places in the Qur'an, 2:78, 3:20, 3:75
and 62:2 where it is in the plural .
4
It is to be noted that in his translation of the 'qyah 7:157 quoted above he
translates the phrase (pi ,y- J J J_,...J4 I'"" _,...4) ya'muruhum bi al-ma 'ritf and
yanhahum 'an al-munkar as "bidding them to honour and forbidding dishonour".
The plain meanings of the words al-ma'ritj and al-munkar are respectively "the
approved or recognised" and "the disapproved or unrecognised" things. They do
not mean "honour" and "dishonour". Throughout his translation Arberry has
used "honour" and "dishonour" wherever these phrases occur, thus distorting the
meanings at every place. It is not known whether he has taken these senses from
1
Arberry, op.cit., p. 270.
2
Ibid.,p.161.
' Ibid., p. 162
Ibid, pp. 10, 47, 56 and 563.
R. Bell or A. Jeffery who are bent on relating as many words as possible of the
Qur'an to Syriac and Hebrew origins.
The instance cited above about the meanings given to the expressions al-ma 'rnj
and al-munkar are only characteristic of Arberry's taking liberty in giving his own
meanings to many words distorting the sense of the 'qyahs concerned. Thus he
translates the phraseyamudduhum )at 2:15 as "shall lead them on".
1
Yamuddu
means "he extends" or "gives rein to"; it does not mean "shall lead them on",
which completely distorts the meaning of the clause. Similarly he translates the
phrase ta:r_aharnna 'a/qyhim 0J.r"tk;)at 2:85 as "conspiring against them."
2
means "you (all) assist or give support against them", not "conspire
against them". The phrase 'a'izzah 'ala al-k4Jirfn at 5:54 is translated as "disdainful
towards the unbelievers".
3
The plain meaning of the phrase is "stern or tough
against the unbelievers", not "disdainful towards the unbelievers". This meaning
gives a completely altered sense to the clause.
Again, the clause fo I} j J) wa qulu hiftatun naghjir lakum
khatqyakum in 2:58 is translated as : "and say, Unburdening; We will forgive you
your transgressions."
4
Here the word stands for "seek forgiveness" and is a
conditional clause of which the conclusion is "We will forgive you ... " Arberry
translates the expression l;ittah as Unburdening, writing it with a capital letter and
putting a semicolon after it. This makes the sense unintelligible, violates the
grammatical form of its being a conditional clause and makes the clause "We will
forgive you" appear as an independent statement rather than the conclusion of
the conditional clause. If Arberry was careful to note that the expression wa qulu
bittah is a condition of which the conclusion is "We will forgive you ... " he could
not have given the awkward meaning to l;i(tah , whatever might have been his
source for giving this meaning to the word. He repeats the same thing at 7:161
where the expression occurs again.
5
It is also noteworthy that in the above
mentioned clause he translates the phrase kha(qyakum as "your transgressions".
Kha(qyd means sins, mistakes, faults, not transgressions.
Even very commonly used phrases as( ..::;4\11 faf!alnd a/- 'qydt or nufaf!tlu
al-'qyat have always been given a distorted meaning as "We have distinguished the
signs" or "We distinguish the signs".
6
The plain meaning of the words or
1
Ibid., p. 3.
2
Ibid., p. 10.
' Ibid., p. 109.
4
Ibid., p. 7
' Ibid., o. 162.
nujassilu is "we elucidate, explain, elaborate, spell out" and the like. It does not
mean "we distinguish". It is easy to see how this meaning gives a different sense
to the clause or 'qyah in which it is used. Similarly he translates the expression :
ja'alakum khala'if al-'ar{i .....A.l'>\.>:. 6:165 (Surt ai-'An'am) as "appointed
you viceroys in the earth".
2
The plain meaning of khala'if is "successors", not
"viceroys". Again he translates the expression: Wa ya 'Adamu-uskun 'anta wa
zawjuka af.jannata (3.:..o.Ji .;.b.. Jj J .:..if i.)T l:J ) at 7:19 (Sura! ai'A 'rtifj as: "0 Adam,
inherit, thou and thy wife, the Garden".
3
The plain meaning of uskun is "you
dwell", not "inherit." In this way numerous words are arbitrarily translated to
distort the meanings.
(c) Mistakes due to failure to understand the Arabic expression:
Sometimes he fails to understand an idiom and gives an arbitrary meaning to
it. Thus he translates the idiom C+l-'if .} .b.A..... ) suqi{a ft 'qydfhim in the initial clause
of 'qyah 7:149, wa lamma suqita ft 'qydfhim, as: "And when they smote their
hands ... "
4
Suqifa ft yadihi is an idiomatic expression meaning : to be at a loss, to
be bewildered, to stand aghast, and the like. "To smite the hand" is no English
idiom giving a similar meaning. Even a literal translation of the Arabic words
would be "it was fallen in their hands", the initial verb being in the passive voice,
not "they smote their hands". To smite means to hit hard or to strike. This word
has no relationship in meaning to the Arabic word saqafa, which means: he or it
fell.
Similarly he fails to grasp the meaning of the idiom 'an yadin in the last clause
of 'qyah 9:29 and translates it as :"out of hand"; while the correct meaning of the
idiom is "in submission". Again he misunderstands the idiomatic clause at the
beginning of 21:64, Ji \.>""'")) farqja'u 'ila 'anfusihim, and translates it as : "So
they returned one to another",
5
which is confusing and unintelligible. The plain
meaning of the expression is that "they reflected". Even a literal translation, "they
returned to themselves", would mean that they reflected and thought about their
own position. Again, he translates the first clause of the 'qyah 10:11 (Surat Yunus)
_rll ...,...w .u.ll J wa law yu'qjjillu-1/ahu li al-nasi al-sharra istiJalahum bi
al-khqyr, as: "If God should hasten unto men evil as they would hasten good."
6
1
See for instance the translations of 'Jyah.r 6:126, 7:32 and 7:52, ibid, pp. 136, 146 and 149 respectively.
2
Ibid, p. 146.
' Ibid, p. 144.
4
Ibid., p. 160.
' Ibid., p. 328.
The correct meaning is: "And were Allah to hasten for men the evil as the
hastening to them of the good".
In the same way Arberry fails to understand or disregards the correct meaning
of the clause: w! -4) t.. J )wa ma 'urfdu 'an 'ukhalifakum in 11:88 (Surat Hud)
and translates it as: "and I desire not to come behind you".
2
The correct meaning
of the expression 'ukhalifu is "I oppose, differ, contradict, and the like," not "I go
behind you". Again, he translates the expression : innama 'anta mundhir wa li-kulli
qawmin had (.)t.. js:J J JJ...:.. .. : .. J WI) at 13:7 (Surat ai-Ra'd) as "Thou art only a
warner, and a guide to every people."
3
The correct meaning is. "Thou are only a
warner; and for every people there is a guide." Arberry fails to recognise or
disregards the fact that the expression : wa li-kulli qawmin had is not a description
of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be on him) but an independent
sentence stating another fact.
These are some instances of this type of mistake in his translation.
(d) Addition to or omission from the original :
Often an additional clause is added in the translation though it is not in the
original. A gross instance of this is his translation of 11:25, wa laqad 'arsalna Nuhan
'i/a qawmihi innf lakum nadhtrum-mubfn ( .:r.-- _r.li Jl ....., ; Jl \.:... _,; \.J.....) ..I.Al J ) as: "And
We sent Noah to his people: ' I am for you a warner and a bearer of good
tidings."
4
There is nothing in the original here for the addition "and a bearer of
good tidings"; while the adjective mubfn (open and clear) is left out of the
translation. i
Similarly he translates the expression: lj_,......,l ?\II .J.$-J 'idhaja'a
wa'd al-'akhirati li-:;asu'u wlfiuhakum in 17:7 (Surat a!- 'Isra') as: "Then, when the
promise of the second came to pass, We sent against you Our servants to
discountenance you".
5
The plain translation of the expression is "Then when the
promise for the second came in order that they might disgrace your faces". There
is nothing here in the original for the words "We sent against you Our servants"
which is Arberry's interpolation. It is also to be noted that the meaning of the
expression li-:;asu'u wlfiuhakum is "that they might disgrace or disfigure your
faces", not "to discountenance you", as Arberry puts it.
1
Ibid., p. 197.
2
Ibid., p. 222.
' Ibid., p. 240
' Ibid., p. 214.
5
Ibid., p. 274.
Again, the expression: (.:* ......; J..l'-' .} 'l J) wa Ia ya 'ffnaka fl
ma'rn.ftn fa bqyi'hunna wastagh.ftr lahunna in 60:12 (Surat ai-Mumtabinah) is translated
as: "nor disobey thee in aught honourable, ask God's forgiveness for them".
1
Here, not to speak of the word "honourable" as the meaning of ma'rnfi the
expression fa bqyi'hunna (then "take their oath of fealty) occurring in the original is
omitted from the translation.
Such addition to and omission from the original is committed at many places
in the translation.
(e) Mistakes due to carelessness:
Sometimes words are carelessly read and hence translated wrongly. Thus he
translates the last clause of the 'qyah 30:22 ( .:r.JWl .. :.A/:i .!..lb J 01 ) 'inna fl dhdlika
la-'qyatil lil-'alimfn, as "Surely in that are signs for all living beings."
2
Clearly he
takes the word 'alimfn, which is the accusative form of 'alimun meaning "men of
knowledge" as 'alamfn, meaning "all beings". Another instance is his translation of
the first part of the 'qyah 9:64 J J.r-' J_p 0! 0_,Ajl:.....ll J.k.t )which he
translates as: "The hypocrites are afraid, lest a sura should be sent down against
them, telling thee what is in their hearts ... "
3
Here the words "telling thee" should
be "telling them", for the expression in the original is tunabbi'uhum, not
tunabbi'uka. The translation completely alters the sense of the 'qyah as a whole.
Even the titles of surahs are carelessly translated. Thus surah 60, which is called
surat ai-Ghd.ftr or surat ai-Mu'min is translated by Arberry as "The Believers."
4
He
overlooks the fact that this surah is called ai-Mu'min or "The Believer" with
reference to its 'qyah 28 which speaks about "a believing man among the people
of Fir'awn" and not with reference to "Believers" in general. He also overlooks
the fact that surah 23 is called "The Believers", which title he correctly translates as
such but fails to see that two surahs could not have been given the same name.
Besides these, inaccurate and remote meanings are given for many well-known
words giving distorted or derogatory senses. Thus 'qjr (reward, recompense) is
more often translated as "wage"
5
; al-ba'th (resurrection) is translated as
"Uprising"
6
which word is susceptible of quite a different meaning than
I Ibid., P 579.
2
Ibid., p. 413.
' Ibid., p. 186.
' Ibid., pp. 481-490
5
See for instance ibid., pp. 232, 405.
' Ibid., p. 333.
resurrection; mithqala dharrah (the weight of an atom) is translated as "the weight
of an ant";
1
'a)'amt (a non-Arab) is translated as "a barbarian";
2
mursaltn
(Messengers) is as "Envoys";
3
tujtanuna (you are tried/tested) is
translated as "you are being proved";
4
and so on.
The above is not a comprehensive list of the mistakes and distortions in the
translation as a whole. They are only some specimens. On the whole Arberry's
translation is calculated to distort and give a very biased impression about the
Qur'an
VI. OTHER MAIN EUROPEAN TRANSLATIONS
Of the other main European translations mention may be made of the French
translation made by R. Blachere, Le Co ran. Traduction nouvele, published in 194 7-50.
It was reprinted in 1957, 1959, 1966 and 1972. Another French translation with
notes is that of D. Masson, Le Coran, with a preface by J. Grosjean, published in
1967. A new edition of it was published in 1980. Of the translations in German
two were published in 1901, one made by Theodor F. Grigull, Der Koran, and the
other by Max Henning, Der Koran. Aus den Arabischen ubertragen etc. A new edition
of this work with an introduction and notes by Annemarie Schimmel was
published at Stuttgart in 1960 and reprinted in 1962. Another edition of it with an
introduction by Ernst Warber and Kurt Rudolph, and with notes and index was
published in 1968. This edition was reprinted in 197 4 and 1979. Another German
translation is that of Lazarus Goldschmidt, Der Koran, etc., which was first
published in 1916 and was reprinted in 1923. During 1963-1971 was published
another German translation of the Qur'an in three volumes by Rudi Paret.
Of the translations in other European languages mention may be made of the
Italian translations made by Aquilio Fracassi, published in 1914; by Luigi Bonelli,
published in 1929 and republished in 1940 and 1948; by Alessandro Bussani,
published in 19 55 and another edition published in 1961; and by Mario Moreno,
published in 1967 and reprinted in 1969. A number of translations were made
also in Spanish both in the nineteenth and the twentieth centuries. The most
notable of these are : one by Rafael Cansinos Assens, which was published in
1951 and which went through as many as six editions; another by Dr. Juan
V ernet, which was published in 1963 and which went through a number of
1
In 'dyah 10:61,ibid., p. 204.
2
'Ayah 26:198, ibid., p. 380.
' Ayah 26:21, ibtd., p. 371.
4
'Ayah 27:47, ibid., p. 386.
editions; another by J. Gracia-Bravo, which was published at Barcelona as well as
in Mexico in 1972; and another with notes by Julio Cortes, published in 1979. Of
the several Swedish translations of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries the one
by A. Ohlmarks and published in 1961 may also be mentioned in this
connection.
All these translations suffer from the usual orientalist bias and they contain
similar mistakes, distortions and misinterpretations.
CHAPTER XIV
CONCLUSION
It would be clear from the foregoing discussion that the orientalists leave no
stone unturned to assail the Qur'an. This attempt of theirs has been going on
since the beginning of orientalism in the late middle ages. In modern times,
however, the main lines of assault have been laid down in the mid-and
late-nineteenth century mainly by William Muir and Theodore Noldeke. It is
mostly their assumptions and theories that have been adopted, enlarged and
reiterated by the subsequent orientalists.
The main manoeuvre has been to prove by one device or another that the
Qur'an is a composition of the Prophet's. This stance of the orientalists is in fact
no different from the attitude of the Makkan unbelievers, whose immediate
reaction and allegation was the same; but the modern orientalists employ the
technique of modern research and a variety of arguments and assumptions to
prove their case. Broadly, they direct their assault on two fronts - against the
nature of the Qur'an as a divinely revealed scripture and against its history and
text. The aim in both cases is to show that it is a composition of the Prophet's or
of some later hands. A second motive of theirs, in so as their discussion about the
history of the Qur'an is concerned, is to bring down the Qur'an to the level of the
Bible; for it is now generally acknowledged that the various books of the Old
Testament and the gospels of the New Testament were written down at later
times by different individuals. The orientalists in fact acknowledge this motive of
theirs when they say that the Qur'an also has a "history" just as the Bible has one.
The suggestion of the Prophet's authorship of the Qur'an is made both
directly and indirectly. As regards the direct allegation the orientalists adopt three
main lines of arguments. One, they allege that the Prophet was an ambitious
person who intended to play the role he subsequently played and made careful
preparations for the purpose including the cultivation of poetical skill for giving
out the Qur'an. The originators of this allegation were Muir and Margoliouth; and
it was taken up by other orientalists. To this allegation were added other
elements, namely, that Mul:).ammad (p.b.h.) was concerned about the
socio-religious and economic conditions of his people and decided to reform
them; and this he could best do by means of a new religion and by assuming the
role of a Prophet. He did not embrace either Judaism or Christianity because
doing so would mean subservience to either the Persian or the Byzantine Empire
with which these two religious systems were closely linked and he was far too
great a patriot to succumb to that position. Hence he gave himself out as a
Prophet, devised a "national" religion and delivered the Qur'an embodying the
teachings and rules of the new religion.
The arguments and assumptions used by the orientalists to support this
explanation of the rise of Islam and Muhammad's (p.b.h) alleged authorship of
the Qur'an have been examined one by one and it has been shown that these are
all untenable and unreasonable.
1
A second plea of the orientalists is that the Prophet was not 'iimm[y or
unlettered as is given out and that he at least knew reading and writing enough to
carry on business activities. The main advocate of this plea is W. M. Watt who
suggests that the "myth" of the Prophet's "illiteracy" has been created later by
Muslims to prove the miraculous nature of the Qur'an. The arguments and
assumptions in this respect have also been thoroughly analyzed and it has been
shown that the assumption of later Muslims' having invented the myth of the
Prophet's "illiteracy" is totally wrong; for the Qur'an itself bears an eloquent
testimony to this fact. It has further been shown that Watt blatantly misinterprets
the relevant Qur'anic passages and that he is wrong in his assertion that the term
'umm[y only means a person or persons who have no scripture.
2
The third plea or allegation of the orientalists is that the Prophet borrowed his
ideas and information from Judaism and Christianity and made a new religion by
mixing them up with some pagan Arab elements and gave his Qur'an gradually,
acquiring at the same time more information about the two above mentioned
religions. The allegation is general with almost all the orientalists. It was spelt out
clearly in the mid-nineteenth century by William Muir and ever since his time
subsequent orientalists have repeated and elaborated it. The assumptions and
arguments adduced to sustain the theory have been closely examined and found
to be both irrational and untrue. It has been seen that the most that the
orientalists suggest is that the Prophet had acquired only a superficial and
second-hand knowledge about the two systems; and it has been pointed out that
no sensible and intelligent person, as the Prophet by all accounts was, would have
ventured to propound a new religion only on the basis of such a second-hand and
superficial knowledge of a couple of other religious systems. Moreover, it has
been emphasized that the Qur'an, and for that matter the Prophet, does not deny
1
See .rupra, pp. 7-15.
2
Supra, pp. 15-25.
CONCLUSION 355
the link with the previously revealed scriptures. On the contrary, it repeatedly
asserts that Allah's message delivered through the succession of past Prophets has
always been the same, that this message has been corrupted and adulterated by
human interference, particularly with regard to Judaism and Christianity and that
the Qur'an revives, completes and confirms the same message of Allah shorn of
the corruption and accretions made to it. Far from concealing its link with the
prevailing Judaism and Christianity the Qur'an in fact challenges their authenticity
and claims to deliver the true and authentic message of Allah, stressing that as
God is One, there cannot be different "religions" for different groups and races.
Most important of all, it has been shown by a comparison of the stories of a
number of the Prophets as given in the Bible and the Qur'an that the accounts in
the latter differ in substantial ways from those given in the former and that
therefore the allegation of the orientalists that the Prophet heard these stories
from bazaar gossips and travelling traders and incorporated them in the Qur'an is
totally baseless and untenable. The orientalists simply ignore or avoid the
important fact of the unity of Allah's message through all the Prophets and the
undeniable corruption of the previous scriptures, and, instead, iabour
impressively but irrationally to convince their readers that Muhammad (p.b.h.)
preached a new religion and gave out a new scripture simply by borrowing some
ideas and facts from others!
1
This absurd proposition is even pedanticised by Watt who incorporates it in
his theory of environmental influences upon the Prophet. Watt not only reiterates
the alleged Judaeo-Christian influence upon the Prophet but even suggests that
the contemporary scientific errors, particularly those relating to the sky and the
earth, were introduced in the Qur'an. Further, Watt attempts to befool the
readers by repeating the usual Christian apology with regard to the scientific
errors in the Bible that it was not necessary for the purpose of delivering God's
message to rectify such errors! This and other unreasonable assumptions of Watt
and his utter misinterpretations of the Qur'anic passages in this connection have
been demonstrated and it has been shown that far from incorporating the alleged
scientific errors the Qur'an contains such surprising statements and pointers to
scientific facts as are being unveiled only by modern research and as could by no
means have been available at the Prophet's time.
2
1
See supra, pp. 26-61.
2
See supra, pp. BBff.
356 1HE QUR'AN AND THE ORIENTALISTS
The indirect allegation of the Prophet's authorship of the Qur'an is contained
in the orientalists' treatment of the Qur'anic wa(!y. In fact the allegation cannot be
sustained without disposing of the phenomenon of waf;y. Therefore the
orientalists devote a good deal of attention to it. In doing so they generally adopt
a secularist stance and completely disregard the fact that the Bible very much
speaks of God's communications to His Prophets through the angel Jibril. In the
case with Muhammad (p .b. h.), thus, they treat such a phenomenon as unnatural
and unreasonable and attempt to explain it away in various ways. On assumption,
based mainly on the medieval allegation of the Prophet's having been the victim
of the disease of fainting fitness, is that the revelations were his "trance
utterances". This theory was propounded by Muir. Subsequent orientalists are shy
of making the direct allegation of disease, but they do nonetheless make use of
Muir's suggestion. Specially Margoliouth and Watt build upon it their theory of
the Prophet's having allegedly acquired the habit of inducing the symptoms of
revelation. A second assumption, related to Carlyle's suggestion of the Prophet's
sincerity, is that though he sincerely believed himself to be in receipt of God's
communications, he was not correct in that belief and that it was more or less a
psychological phenomenon with him. A third assumption, made by Margoliouth
on the basis of Podmore's thesis, is that the Prophet, though sincere, could at the
same time be deceitful and that the matter of wa(!y was a deceit from first to last.
A fourth assumption, also made by Margoliouth, is that the Prophet was not
aware of angels nor of Jibril till he migrated to Madina and that therefore the
latter was introduced as bearer of wa(!y only at Madina. A fifth assumption related
to the last mentioned one and made also by Margoliouth on a misinterpretation
of the Qur'anic passage 53:5-12 is that the Prophet initially claimed to have seen
God but subsequently realized his mistake and mystified the claim and introduced
the angel instead. These latter two assumptions are taken over by Bell and his
pupil Watt. Bell further misinterprets the above mentioned Qur'anic passage and
Watt dissects and grossly misinterprets al-Zuhri's report on the coming of wal!J
into a number of separate reports for the sake of sustaining the theory of the
"vision of God" by the Prophet. Last but least, Watt advances a theory of
"intellectual locution" about waqy, based on the work of A. Poulain on mystical
theology.
All these assumptions and conjectures are made to confuse the issue of wa(!y
and to prove that the Qur'anic texts issued in some form or other from the
CONCLUSION 357
knowledge and mind of the Prophet. These assumptions, conjectures and
misinterpretations of the texts have been meticulously examined and analysed and
it has been shown that each and everyone of these assumptions and theories is
unreasonable, wrong and untenable.
1
To the same end of demonstrating the Prophet's alleged authorship of the
Qur'an are directed the orientalists' discussions about its history and text. So far
as the history of the Qur'an is concerned the orientalists fall into two broad
groups. The earlier generations of them, while generally holding that the Prophet
gave out the Qur'an, suggest (a) that though he had the texts of the revelations
written down, he did not do so systematically in all cases; (b) that therefore some
of what he gave out might have been forgotten or lost; (c) that he did not collect
and collate the texts of the revelation in one compilation during his life-time; (d)
that this was done after his death, not by 'Abu Bakr (r.a.) in the first instance as
the report says but by 'Uthman (r.a.); (e) that this compilation was made pardy
from written records and pardy from people's memory and, (f) that 'Uthman's
compilation was thus not complete but something must have been left out.
Further, supposed and arbitrary dates are assigned to different passages and surahs
of the Qur'an. All these lines of approach were laid down in the late nineteenth
century by Theodore Noldeke and subsequent orientalists have generally adopted
and elaborated them, piling assumptions upon assumptions. Particularly his
statement about the alleged incompleteness of the 'Uthmanic Qur'an and the
existence of copies of written texts of the Qur'an with a number of the Prophet's
Companions has been inflated by Arthur Jeffery into a theory of the existence of
variant and different texts of the Qur'an.
These assumptions and conjectures have been examined and shown to be
both unreasonable and untenable. Specially it has been shown that the Prophet
had not only had the texts of the revelations written down but had himself
memorized them and required his followers to do so. He did not forget anything
and used to recite the whole Qur'an as far as revealed before the angel Jibril in
the month of Rama9an each year; and he did so twice during the last year of his
life. He also arranged the separately revealed passages into surahs and arranged the
order of the surahs according to divine guidance received in this respect. The
orientalists' assumption that the Qur'an was not collected in one compilation
during the time of the Prophet's immediate successor 'Abu Bakr (r.a.) is both
1
See supra, chaps. IV-VII.
incorrect and unreasonable. They are also wrong in their supposttlon that
something was collected from memory and something from written records. The
reports about the compilation, particularly that of Zayd ibn Thabit who was one
of the Prophet's writers and who was directly involved in the task of compilation,
very specifically states that nothing was included in the compilation unless it was
corroborated simultaneously by the written records and from memory or by two
independent witnesses. The work done during 'Uthman's time was not the first
compilation but copies made from the compilation made during 'Abu Bakr's time
after streamlining the variations in vocalization and recitation that had crept up at
the time, for the purpose of sending them to the different provinces which came
into existence only after 'Abu Bakr, during the times of his successors 'Umar and
'Uthman. On the whole the collection of the Qur'an in one compilation was
accomplished in the presence and with the assistance and co-operation of the
principal Companions of the Prophet and on close comparison of the written
records with the memorized texts. There was thus no question of anything being
left out; and nothing was in fact left out. Noldeke's surmise that 'Uthman's
Qur'an was not complete is utterly wrong without any evidence whatsoever in its
support. Also the theory of the existence of variant copies (ma.rakiJJ of the Qur'an
is wrong. The few variant words and phrases so far tabulated are not gleaned
from any copy of a mu!f?af (codex) as such but from reports found in various
commentaries. The veracity and authenticity of these reports have neither been
looked into nor determined. Similarly Noldeke's and others' arbitrary dating of
the Qur'anic passages and surahs are merely conjectural, unsubstantiated and
untenable.
1
The other and later group of the orientalists headed by Wansborough, Cook
Crone, Yahuda De Neva and others base their assumptions about the history of
the Qur'an on their predecessor orientalists' view about the sources of Islamic
history, particularly that of Goldziher and Schacht regarding the authenticity of
the reports (l;adfth), and advance a theory of the gradual evolution of the Qur'an
during the second-third century of Islam. This "revisionist" view is so
preposterously wrong that it has been denounced and rejected by the more sober
section of the orientalists themselves. The assumptions and arguments of this
revisionist school have also been examined and their unreasonableness and
untenability have been laid bare.
2
1
See .rlljJra, chaps. VIII and IX.
2
See .rupra ch. X.
CONCLUSION 359
Both groups of the orientalists, however, attempt to bring down the Qur'an at
par with the Bible, or, as they say, the Qur'an has a "history" just as the Bible has
a "history". This latter trend is in fact an outcome of the orientalists' experience
with regard to the Bible. The textual study of the Bible and its reinterpretation
were necessitated by a realization during as early as the nineteenth century of the
conflict of many scientific data with Biblical statements and it came gradually to
be acknowledged that "the Books of the Bible were written by a variety of
human beings in a variety of circumstances and cannot be accorded a verbal
divine authority. "
1
The Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) reaffirmed that
position and accepted the fact that the Books of the Old Testament contain
material that is imperfect and obsolete.
2
As the orientalists admit direcdy and
indirectly, the attempts to subject the Qur'an to their brand of "textual study" is
to bring it down to the level of the Bible; but the circumstances that have led the
Christians to their revised view about the Bible do not apply to the case of the
Muslims; for there is no conflict between science and Qur'an nor are they
anywhere under the thraldom of the Church, as were the people of Europe under
the Medieval Papacy.
As regards the text of the Qur'an, a number of assumptions and statements
have been made. As in the case of the history of the Qur'an, so in this respect
also the main lines of assumptions were laid down by Noldeke. Broadly these
assumptions are: (a) That the greater part of the Qur'an is prosaic, "much of it
indeed is stiff in style"; (b) that it is not poetical but rhetorical; and "the rhyme is
regularly maintained, although, specially in the later pieces, after a very slovenly
fashion." Yet, enough, it is stated that there is "gross negligence of
the rhyme in the Koran"; (c) that there are sudden changes in subjects and
themes; (d) that as regards the stories of the Prophets links in the sequence of
events are omitted and "nowhere do we find a steady advance in the narration";
and (e) that the Prophet, who was "indebted to the instruction of the Jews and
Christians" could not "fully express his new ideas in the common language.of his
countrymen" and had to make "free use" of Jewish, Christian and foreign words.
Subsequent orientalists built further assumptions on these remarks of Noldeke.
Specially Bell and Watt based their theory of revision of the Qur'an by the
Prophet on the basis of what is supposed to be sudden changes in subjects and
themes and break in the rhyme; and A. Jeffery prepared his work on the "Foreign
1
J. Hicks, ed,. The Myth of God Incarnate, S C M Press, London, 1978, Preface.
2
See Maurice Bucaille, What ir the Origin of Man, Seghers, Paris, 1988, p. 15.
vocabulary of the Qur'an" on the basis of the assumption that the Prophet could
not fully express his new ideas in the common language of his countrymen".
These views and assumptions also have been closely scrutinised and shown to
be unreasonable and untenable. It has been pointed out that Noldeke's
assumptions about the sudden changes in subjects and the language and style of
the Qur'an is due to his lack of understanding of the basic theme of the Qur'an,
i. e., the message of monotheism (tawbfd) and the unity and continuity of God's
message through all the Prophets. It has also been shown that the Bell-Watt
theory of revision of the Qur'an, based on the supposed sudden changes in
subjects and rhymes and built upon a gross twisting of the facts and
misinterpretation of the texts is totally wrong and untenable. Similarly it has been
demonstrated that the so-called "foreign vocabulary" of the Qur'an is nothing but
words of non-Arab origin naturalized in the Arabic language before the
emergence of the Prophet; and that many of these words are common to Arabic,
Syriac, Aramaic, Hebrew and Ethiopic, they being cognate languages branching
off from the original Arabie-Aramaic, the language of the great 'Ad people, the
progeny of Aram, a descendant of Sam, son of Nul), who once inhabited the
whole region from Abyssinia through the Arabian Peninsula including Iraq and
Syria.
There have been other attempts to find faults with the text of the Qur'an, such
as the supposed inconsistencies and grammatical faults. These suppositions are
due entirely to a lack of understanding of the theme and text of the Qur'an. Of
late a theory of copyists' errors has been advanced by ]. A. Bellamy. His
arguments and assumptions have been examined and the absurdity of the theory
has been demonstrated. It has also been shown how in their translations of the
Qur'an the orientalists attempt to tamper with the meaning and purport of the
Qur'anic texts.
1
In their treatment of the history and text of the Qur'an the orientalists,
particularly the "revisionists", stress the need for "textual study" and they often
ask the Muslims to be benefited by what is called the "hindsight of the European
experience." Underlying this plea is the misconception that Islam and the Qur'an
lack liberalism, individualism and rationalism. Such a notion is totally wrong.
Rather, every serious student of the European Renaissance and Reformation
knows that both the movements had their origin to a large extent in the
1
See .rupra, chaps. XI and XII.
CONCLUSION 361
European contact with Islam and the Islamic civilization, and both the
movements derived their inspiration from the intellectual and rational influences
exerted by the Islamic East. Moreover, the Reformation took place essentially
because of the pretensions and corruption of the Church and the Papacy. The
eclipse of the individuality of man and the stagnation of human intellect and
reason which characterized life in medieval Europe and which the Renaissance
and the Reformation sought to remove and reform cannot be said to obtain in
the Islamic world and the East in general.
In fact the orientalists' attempt to interpret the Qur'an and their plea of the
"hindsight of the European experience" in this context is to bring about a major
social change in the Islamic world to the liking of the West. What is overlooked is
t h ~ t , if it is merely a question of material progress and technological development,
even the non-Muslim and non-Christian peoples and countries of Asia and Africa
are catching up in both the fields; while Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Christian and
other peoples of these continents are not impressed by such aspects of the
affluent society of the West as the gradual break-up of families due to the
acceptance of pre-marital and extra-marital sexual relationships as a norm, the
growth of single-parent families (more appropriately bastard children),
recognition of lesbianism and homosexuality as individual rights, eschewing or
condoning of adultery and fornication as matters of personal or private life,
degradation of womanhood to a commodity for sex-appealing display and
advertisements, and the like. Such developments are in fact an outcome of
over-emphasis on individualism which is, on the one hand, an extreme reaction to
the suppression of individualism under the Medieval European Church and
Papacy and, on the other, a by-product of the notion that religion is merely a
matter of private and personal life. Before attempting to bring about such social
changes in the other parts of the world the Western society would do well to
rethink if all the legacies of the Renaissance and the Reformation have been
beneficial to itself or if these would be palatable to the rest of the world.
The main problem with the orientalists is that they do not seem to recognize
the unity and continuity of God's message through all the Prophets. Even if they
had cared to take into account the modern European researches
1
showing how
the original teachings of Moses and Jesus have been tampered with and
1
See for instance Hyam Maccoby, The Mythmaker Paul and the Invention of Christianity, Widenfeld and Nicholson, London,
1986; E. P. Sanders, Paul and the Palestinian Judaism, second impression, S.C.M. Press, London, 1981 and Michael Amhem,
Ir CbrZ:rtianiry True?, Duckworth, London, 1984.
corrupted
1
they would have paused to see the gigantic system of error and
deception which has been devised and imposed by the Imperial Roman authority
through the instrumentality of their agent Paul and would have realized the truth
of the Qur'anic statement to the same effect and its claim to have revived,
completed and confirmed the message delivered through all the Prophets. This
realization would also have rendered unnecessary and infructuous the
witch-hunting about Muhammad's (p.b.h) and the Qur'an's alleged indebtedness
to Judaism and Christianity and all the laboured surmises, twisting of the facts
and misinterpretation of the texts which, as demonstrated in the previous few
chapters, are the orientalists' main or sole stock-in-trade in their attempts to assail
the Qur'an.
1
See for instance Robert Eiseman, Maccabees, Zadokites, Christians and Qumran, Leiden, 1983; and Michael Baigent and
Richard Leigh, The Dead Sea Scro/Lr Deception, Corgi Books, 1993; Holger Kersten and Elmer Gruber, The Jesus Conspirary:
The Turin Shroud & the Truth about the &sumction, Dorset, 1992; and B. D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture,
Oxford, 1993.
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
(See also references in the footnotes)
'ABD AL-SALAM, 'Izz AL-DiN 'ABD AL'Aziz IBN, Fawa'id Ff' Mushkil ai-Qur'an, ed. S.
Ri9wan 'Ali, second impression Beirut, 1402/1982.
Af:IMAD, .f:IANAFi, AI-Tajsf'r ai'IImf' li /bat ai-Kawnryyah Ff' ai-Qur'an, Cairo, n.d.
Au, Muf:IAMMAD, The Hofy Qur'an, Translation and Commentary, revised edition,
Lahore, 1985.
Au, Muf:IAMMAD MoHAR, Sf'rat ai-Nabf' and the Orientalists, with special reference to the
writings of William Muir, D. S. Margoliouth and W Montgomery Watlj vol. IA and
vol. IB, Madinah, 1997.
'AMiRi, MUf:IAMMAD WAFA AL-, AI-'Ishdrat ai-'IImryyah Ff' ai-Qur'an, second
impression, Cairo, 1401/1981.
ANDALUSi, Muf:IAMMAD IBN YOsuF 'ABO f:IAYYAN AL-, AI-Bakr ai-Muf;f'( Ff' ai-Tajsf'r, 11
vols., Makka, n.d.
ARBERRY, A. J ., The Koran Interpreted, Oxford University Press, 1983.
M. M., The History of the Qur'anic Text from Revelation to Compilation. A
Comparative Study with the Old and New Testaments, Leicester, 2003.
--On Schacht's Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence, New York/Riyad, 1985.
--Studies in Earfy If-adf'th Literature: With a Critical Edition of some Earfy Texts,
2nd edition, Indianapolis, 1978.
--Kuttab ai-Nabf', Beirut, 1394 H.
BAYJ?AWi, AL-QAJ?i AL-DiN 'ABO SA'AD 'ABDALLAH IBN 'UMAR AL-SHiRAzi,
AL-, Anwar ai-Tanij1 wa 'Asrar ai-Ta'wf'l (Jcifstr ai-Bqyr/awf'), 2 vols, Beirut,
1408/1988.
BELL, RicHARD, The Origin of Islam in its Christian Environment, London, 1926.
--The Qur'an Translated with a Critical Rearrangement of the Surahs, 2 vols.
Edinburgh, 1937-1939.
--"Mohammed's call", The Moslem World, January, 1934, pp. 13-19.
--"Mohammed's visions", ibid., April, 1934, pp. 19-34.
BELLAMY, J. A., "Al-Raqim or al-Ruqud? A note on surah 18:9", Journal of the
American Oriental Society, 1991, pp. 115-117.
--"Fa-Ummuhu Hawiyah". A note on surah 101:9", ibid., 1992, pp. 485-487.
--"Some proposed emendations to the text of the Koran", ibid., 1993, pp.
562-573.
--"More proposed emendations to the text of the Koran", ibid., 1996, pp.
196-204.
BucAILLE, MAURICE, What is the Origin if Man ? The Answers if Science and the Hofy
Smptures, 4th edition, Seghres, Paris, 1988.
--The Bible, TheQur'an and Science, Indianapolis reprint, 1978
BuKHARi, 'ABO 'ABDALLAH MUI-;IAMMAD IBN IsMA'iL, .faqfh ai-Bukhdrf, new edition
in 4 vols., Dar al-Kitab al-'Ilmiyyah, Beirut, 1992.
BuRTON,JOHN, The Collection oftheQur'an, Cambridge, 1977.
CouLSON, N. ]., A History of Islamic Law, London, 1964.
DAMAGHANi, AL-HusA YN IBN Mui:AMMAD AL-, Qamus ai-Qur'an, Beirut, 1985.
DoNNER, FREDERICKM., Narratives if Islamic Origins The Beginnings iflslamic Historical
Writing, Princeton, 1998.
EHRMAN, D., The Orthodox Corruption if Scripture. The Effect if Earfy Christological
Controversies on the Text if the New Testament, Oxford University Press, New
York and Oxford, 1993.
FARRA', 'ABO ZAKARIYA YAHYA IBN ZIAD, AL- (d. 270 H.), M'anf aiQur'an, 3 vols.,
Beirut, n. d.
FiROZABADi, MAJD AL-DiN Muf:IAMMAD YA'QOB AL-, Ba.ra'ir dhawf al-tamyizfllata'if
ai-Kitab ai-'Aifz (ed. Mubammad 'Ali al-Najjar), 6 vols., Beirut, n. d.
GOLDZIHER, IGNAZ, Muhammedanische Studien, val. II, tr. C. R. Berber and S. M.
Stern, under title Muslim Studies, val. II., London, 1971.
HicKs,]. (ed), The Myth ifGod Incarnate, London, 1977.
IBN 'ABO DAuD, 'ABO BAKR 'ABDALLAH, SuLAYMAN IBN AL-AsH'ATH, AL-SIJISTANi,
Kitab Beirut, 1405 I 1985.
IBN AL-ATHiR, MUI:AMMAD IBN MUI-jAMMAD IBN 'ABD AL-KARiM IBN 'ABD AL-WAH"ID,
AL-SHAYBANi, 'Usd ai-Ghabah, 5 vols., Beirut, n. d.
--AI-Kamil Ff ai-Tarfkh (ed. 'AbdAllah al-Qacli), 10 vols., Beirut, 1407/.1987.
IBN AL-jAWZi, JAMAL AL-DiN 'ABO AL-FARAJ 'ABD AL-RAJ:IMAN IBN 'ALi IBN
MuJ:IAMMAD, Nawasikh aiQur'an (ed. Muqammad Ashraf 'Ali al-Malabari),
Madina Islamic University, 1404/1984.
IBN tJAJAR, AHMAD IBN 'ALi, AL-'AsQALANi, Fatb ai-Barf Ff Sharp ai-Bukhdrf, ed. 'Abd
al-'Aziz ibn Baz and others, 13 vols., Beirut, n.d.
---AI-'habah Ff Tamyfz ahabah, 4 vols., reprinted Beirut, n. d.
IBN f:IANBAL, 'ABO 'ABDALLAH Al:IMAD IBN MUJ:IAMMAD, Musnad ai-Imam ibn
lfanbal wa bi-hamishihi muntakhab Ka'?} ai-Vmmal, 6 vols., old print, n.d.
IBN HISHAM, MUI:AMMAD 'ABD AL-MALIK, AI-Sfrat ai-Nabaw!Jyah, ed. 'Umar 'Abd
al-Salam Tadmuri, 4 vols., Beirut, 1990.
IBN KATHIR, 'ABO AL-FmA' AL-ljAFIZ, AL-DIMASHQi, Tajsfr ai-Qur'an ai-'A?fm, 8
vols., (ed. 'Abd al-'Aziz Ghunaym and others), Cairo, n. d.
IBN QuTAYBAH, 'ABDALLAH IBN MusLIM, Ta'wfl Mushkil aiQur'an, Beirut, 1981.
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY 365
--Al-Bidatyah wa al-Nihqyah (ed. 'Al).mad 'Abu Mull).im and others), 7 vols.,
FUyadh, 1407/1987.
IBN SA 'D, MUI;IAMMAD, AI-Tabaqat al-Kubra, 9 vols., Beirut, 1405 I 1985.
IBN WARRAQ (pseudonym, ed.), The Origins of the Koran Classic Essqys on Islam's Ho!J
Book, Prometheus Books, New York, 1998.
IsFAHANi, 'ABO AL-QASIM AL-f:IUSAYN IBN MUJ:IAMMAD, AL-RAGHIB, AL- (d. 502),
Al-Mufradat Ff Gharfb a!Qur'an, Beirut, n. d.
JEFFERY, ARTHUR, The Foreign Vocabulary oftheQur'an, Baroda, 1938.
--Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur'an The Old Codices etc., E.]. Brill,
Leiden, 1937.
KERSTEN, BoLGER, & GRUBER, ELMAR R., The Jesus Conspiraty The Turin Shroud and
the Truth about the Resurrection, Element Books Ltd., Shaftesbury, 1994.
KHALIFA, MU!-J:AMMAD, The Sublime Qur'an and Orienta/ism, London and New York,
1983.
Koren, J, and Nevo, D., "Methodological Approaches to Islamic Studies, Der
Islam, Band 68, 1991, pp. 87-107.
MAcDONALD, D. B., "The development of the Idea of Spirit in Islam", The Moslem
Worl4 1932, pp. 25-42 and 153-168.
MARGOLIOUTH, DAVID SAMUEL, Mohammed and the Rise of Islam, London, 1905.
--"The Origins of Arabic Poetry", Journal of the Royal AsiaticS ociety, 1925, pp.
417-449.
MAuDODi, 'ABUL 'A'LA, Sfrat-i-Sa!War-i'Alam, Lahore, 1978.
McKINSEY, C. DENNIS, The Entyclopedia of Biblical E17'anty, Prometheus Books, New
York, 1995.
MUIR, WILLIAM, Life of Mahomet, 3rd edition, reprinted 1923.
--The Qur'an: Its Composition and Teaching etc., London, 1897.
MUSLIM, 'ABO AL-J-:I.USAYN MUSLIM IBN AL-f:IAJJAJ AL-QUSHAYRi, AL-NAYSAB0Ri, $ a ~ f q
Muslim, ed. Muhammad Fuwad 'Abd al-Baqi, 5 vols. Istanbul, n. d.
NEvo, Y. D., "Towards a pre-History of Islam", Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and in
Islam, vol. 17, 1994.
Noldeke. Theodor, Geschichte des Qorans, reprinted Leipzig, 1909.
--"The Koran", Entyclopedia Britannica, 9th edition, 1991, vol. 16, reprinted in
Ibn Warr:iq, (ed.), op. cit., pp. 36-53.
NuRBAKI, HALUK, Verses from the Ho!J Qur'an and the Facts of Science (tr. Metin
Beynam, from the Turkish), Delhi, 1998.
RAwi, 'ABD AL-RAI;IMAN, Kalimat al-1-faqq Ff al-Qur'an, 2 vols., Imam Mul].ammad
University, FUyadh, 1409.
RA.zi, 'ABO 'ABD ALLAH MUljAMMAD IBN 'U MAR, AL-F AKHR, Mqfdtff; ai-Ghqyb (a I-T ajsfr
ai-Kabfr), 12 vols., Beirut,1401/1981.
REEVES, MINION, Muhammad in Europe: A Thousand Years of Myth-making,
London, 2000.
RomNSON, MAxrME. "A Critical Survey of Modern Studies on Muhammad", in
Merlin Swartz (ed.), Studies in Islam, Oxford University Press, 1981.
RODWELL, ]. M., The Koran: Translated from the Arabic; the surahs arranged in
chronological order, with notes and index, London, 1861.
SOLIMAN, A.M., Scientific Trends in the Qur'dn, London, 1985.
SPRENGER, A., "Foreign words occurring in the Qur'an", Journal if the Asiatic Society
1852, pp. 109-114.
SuYOTi,JALALAL-DiN, AI-Itqdn H V/Um aiQur'dn, 2 vols. Riyadh, 1987.
'fABARi, 'ABO JA'FARMUijAMMAD IBN]ARIRAL-,Jdmi' ai-Bqydn 'an Ta'wfl /fy aiQur'dn,
15 vols., 1408/1988.
--Tdrikh ai-'Umam wa ai-Muluk, 5 vols., Beirut, 1407/1987.
TAYMi, 'ABO 'UBAYDAH MA'MAR IBN AL-MUTHANNA AL-, Mqjdz ai-Qur'dn, 2 vols., ed.
Mul).ammad Fu'ad Sizk.in, Beirut, 1401/1981.
THIERING, BARBARA, Jesus the Man, Corgi edition, 1993.
ToRREY, C. C., The Jewish Foundation if Islam, New York, 1933.
--The Commercial-Theological Terms if the Koran, Leiden, 1892.
W ANSBOROUGH, J., Qur'dnic Studies. Sources and Methods if Scriptural Interpretation,
Oxford, 1977.
WAIT, W. MONTGOMERY, Muhammad at Mecca, Oxford, 1960.
--Muhammad's Mecca, Edinburgh, 1988.
--Bell's Introduction to the Qur'dn, complete!J revised and enlarged, Edinburgh,
Paperback edition, 1990.
--The Islamic Revelation in the Modern World, Edinburgh, 1969.
--"The dating of the Qur'an: A Review of Richard Bell's Theories", Journal if
the RqyaiAsiaticSociety, 1957, pp. 46-56.
Whelan, Estelle, "Forgotten Witness: Evidence for the Early Codification of the
Qur'an ", Journal if the American OrientalS ociety, vol. 118, n. 1, 1998, pp. 1-14.
WILDE, STEFAN (ed.), The Qur'dn as Text, E.]. Brill, Leiden, 1996.
ZAJJA.J, 'ABO Isl;IAQ IBRAHiM IBN AL-SARI, Ma'dnf aiQur'dn wa 1'rdbuhu, (ed. 'Abd
al-J alil 'Abduhu Shalbi), 5 vols., Beirut, 1988.
ZAMAKHSHARI, 'ABO AL-QASIMJAR ALLAH MAI;IMOD IBN 'UMAR, AL-KHAWARIZMI, AL-,
AI-Kashsh!if 'an Ffaqd'iq ai-Tanifl wa Vyun ai-'Aqdwfl H Wjuh ai-Ta'wfl, 4 vols.,
Beirut, n. d.
INDEX
A
'Aban ibn 'Uthman, collection of (q.v.) by, 254.
'Abhasids, the, 238,257, 266.
Abraham, see Ibrahim.
'AbdAllah ibn 'Abbas, mufqtifof, 218.
'Abd Allah ibn 'Amir ibn Rabi'ah, 213.
'Abd Allah ibn ibn Ghanim, 234.
'AbdAllah ibn Zubayr, 201; mu[qqfof, 219, welcomed
'Uthman's (q.v.) compilation of the Qur'an, 229.
'Abd Allah ibn Mas'ud, f?adtth of, 178-179, 227; muf4af
of, 214, 215, 218, 219, 221, 224, 227, 231, 240;
welcomed 'Uthman's (q.v.) compilation of the
Qur'an, 229-230.
'Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan, 202, 258, 259, 261.
'Abd al-Rahman ibn al-l';larith ibn Hisham, 201.
'Abu al-Aswad al-Du'ali, 202.
'Abu 'Amr Mul).ammad ibn Sa'id al-Dani, 202.
'Abu Bakr, 93, 209, 238; compilation of the Qur'an
(q.v.) under, 200-201, 204, 206-207, 211, 213, 222,
223,224-225,226,227,228,229,233,235,236-237,
238,239,240,241,242,243,357,358.
'Abu Bakr ibn Mul)ammad ibn 'Amr ibn l';lazm, 254.
'Abu l';ludhayfah ibn 'Utbah ibn Rabi'ah, 234.
'Abu Hurayrah, 4adlth of, 178.
Abu Lahab, 10.
Abu Khuzaymah 201, 209, 210, 226, 227,
304.
Abu Musa al-Ash'ari, 226, welcomed 'Uthman's (q.v.)
compilation of the Qur'an, 229; muf4af of, 218, 224,
227, 229;
_Abu! Fazl, Mirza, translation of the Qur'an (q.v.) by,
271.
Abyssinia, 29, 305, 361.
Abyssinian empire, the, connection of Christianity
with, 32.
'Ad, the, 30, 49, 306, 361.
Adharbyjan, 228.
'A'ishah (r.a.), 111, 112, 113, 114, 136, 140, 141, 164,
185, 226, 255; mushaf of, 219,
Al-Furafisah ibn 'Umayr al-l';lanafi, 213.
'Ali, ibn 'Abi '.filib, 93, 202, 213, 226; of, 215,
216,218, 224,226.
'Amr ibn Lul)ayy, introduction of idolatry at Makka
(q.v.) by, 263.
Anas, muff?af of, 218.
Arabic language, 305, 306, 308, 312, 313, 361; the
Qur'an (q.v.) sent down in, 1.
Aram (also Iram), 305, 306, 361.
Aramruc,305,306,309,310,313,314,315,361.
Arberry, A. J., 43, 52, 75, 76, 79; on the literary style of
the Qur'an, 279, 280; translation of the Qur'an (q.v.)
by, 343, 344-351.
Arnold, Theodor, German translation of Sale's (q.v.)
Qur'an translation by, 329.
Arrivabene, Andrea, the first Italian translation of the
Qur'an (q.v.) by, 325.
Assens, Rafael Cansinos, Spanish translation of the
Qur'an by, 351.
Assyria, 263.
Atonement, 337.
Babylonia, 263.
Badr, the battle of, 253.
Hahira, 38.
B
Banu Khuza'ah, introduction of idolatry at Makka
(q.v.) by, 263.
Basilidans, the, denial of the crucifixion (q.v.) of 'Isa
(q.v.) by, 68.
Basrans, the, 227.
Battle ofYamama, the, 225, 233, 234-235.
Bayc)awi, al-, 66.
Bell, Richard, 2, 149, 157, 166, 168, 172, 176, 217,345,
347; dating of the Qur'an (q.v.) by, 47, 232,
assumptions of, about waf!y (q.v.), 92, 99, 110-117,
125; 134, 155, 159, 173, 184, 185; criticism of the
assumption, 126-130; assumption of, about the
Prophet's vision of God, 106, 109, 113, 116,
117-124, 138, 143, 145, 164; assumption of, about
Jibril (q.v.), 110-120, 124, 139, 180-181, 356;
criticism of the assumption, 120-123, 124-125;
views of, regarding the literary style of the Qur'an
(q.v.), 281-282; theory of, about revision of the
Qur'an (q.v.), 182, 221, 232, 282-304, 360; views of,
about the history of the Qur'an (q.v.), 233-240;
translation of the Qur'an (q.v.) by, 271, 343-344.
Bellamy, ]. A., the assumptions of copyist's errors in
the Qur'an (q.v.) made by, 269, 271, 316-323, 361.
Bible, the, 353, 356, 359; stories of the Prophets in the
Qur'an (q.v.) and in, 50, 53-61, evidence of, agrunst
the death of 'Isa (q.v.) on the cross, 69-71; modern
368 11-IE QUR'AN AND 11-IE ORIENTALISTS
Christian awareness of scientific errors in, 72, 355,
359-360.
Bi'r Ma'unah, 199.
Blachere, R., French translation of the Qur'an by, 351.
Bonelli, Luigi, Italian translation of the Qur'an by, 351.
Bothmer, H. C. Graf Von, speculations of, about the
San'a' (q.v.) manuscripts, 267-268, 269, 270.
Boysen, F. E., German translation of the Qur'an by,
329.
Brahma (Hindu god), 37.
Bucaille, Maurice, 72; observations of, about the story
of Musa ( q.v.) in the Qur'an and in the Bible, 59-60.
Buczacki, J. M., Polish translation of the Qur'an by,
329.
Burton, John, theory of, about the history of the
Qur'an (q.v.), 241-244.
Bussani, Alessandro, Italian translation of the Qur'an
by, 351.
Byzantine Empire/power, the, 29, 250; connection of
Christianity with, 32, 353-354;
c
Caetani, Leon, 2.
Calcutta Madrasa, the, 306; secularization of, 272-273.
Catholics, the, worship of Mary (q.v.) by, 65; the
idolatry of, 330.
Children of Israel, the, 36, 266.
Christians, the, 248, 253, 311,312, 313;
Cluniac Movement, the, 37,
Companions of the Cave, the, 334,
Cook, Michael, 2, 249, 254, 259, 267,269, 359.
Cortes, Julio, Spanish translation of the Qur'an by, 352.
Coulson, N. ]., view of, about J. Schacht's ( q.v.) theory
about (q.v.), 246.
Council of Vienna (1311), 324.
Crone, Patricia, 2, 249,254, 259, 267,269, 359.
Crucifixion, the supposed mistake in the Qur'an (q.v.)
about, 68-71.
Crusade, the Second, 324.
Crusentople, Frederick, Swedish translation of the
Qur'an by, 330.
Dahiyah al-Kalbi, 102.
Damascus, 227.
Da'ud, 60.
D
Davenport, R. A., 328, 331.
Dead Sea Scrolls, the, 71.
Diocetae, the, view of, about 'Isa (q.v.), 68.
Dome of the Rock, the Qura'anic inscriptions on,
258-259, 260.
E
Earth, the, description of, in the Qur'an (q.v.), 73-81.
Elijah, see Ilyas.
Ephesus, Council of (431 C.E.), 65.
Ethiopic, 313, 317, 361.
Ezra, see 'Uzayr.
F
Fakhr al-Din al-Razi., Imam, awareness of, about the
spherical nature of the earth (q.v.), 77.
Fatimah hint al-Khattab, 200.
Fijarwar, the, 8, 9.
Finhas, 66.
Fir'awn (see also Pharaoh), 350.
Fracassi, Aquilio, Italian translation of the Qur'an by,
351.
G
Gabriel, see Jibril.
Glazemaker, the Dutch translation of the Qur'an by,
326.
Goldschmidt, Lazarus, German translation of the
Qur'an by, 351.
Goldziher, Ignaz, 2, 218; assumption of, about hadith,
241, 242, 245, 249, 254, 258, 359; untenability of the
assumption of, 245-247.
Gospel tj St. Barnabas, the, denial of the crucifixion (q.v.)
of 'Isa (q.v.) by, 68.
Gracia-Bravo, J, Spanish translation of the Qur'an by,
352.
Grigull, Theodor F., German translation of the Qur'an
by, 351.
H
J:Iadith, 248, 251, 272; instances of the early collection
of, 254-255 the Goldziher-Schacht view of, 241,
242, 245, 254; untenability of the view, 245-247;
Maxirne Rodinson's (q.v.) view about the
authenticity of, 247.
'Umm a/-Mu'inln, 202, 229, 237; mushcif of, 219,
238, 239.
Haman (an intimate of the Pharaoh), 59, 60.
Ff.angs, the, 29; 34, 266, 313.
Harun, 58, 309.
INDEX
369
Hebrew, 305,309, 313, 314, 361.
Henning, Max, German translation of the Qur'an by,
351.
Hijaz, 256,257, 262,263, 264.
f:Iira',12, 92, 101, 102, 103, 111, 114, 136, 137, 140,
148, 149, 150, 151, 168.
l:lirah, a!-, 29.
Hisham ibn 'Abd al-Malik, 202.
Horns, 227.
J:Iubal, 263.
Hud, Prophet, 29, 49.
Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman, 228,229.
. I
Ibn Abi D:lud, Abu Bakr, Kitab ai-Ma!a'lif of, 218, 219,
230,238.
Ibn Rustah, Abu 'Ali, account of, 260.
Ibn Warraq, 2.
Ibrahim, Prophet, 27, 30, 35, 46,48, 50, 171, 264, 266,
276, 277, 298, 312; connection of the Ka'ba (q.v.)
with, 34, 36.
Iconoclastic Movement, the, 37.
Ilyas, 273, 275, 276.
Innocent XI, Pope, 327.
"Intellectual locution", Watt's (q.v.) theory of, 156,
172-186,356.
Iraq, 263, 264, 305, 361; rise of the cities in, 261.
'Isa, (see also Jesus), 35, 54-55, 64, 65, 148, 266, 312;
the supposed divinity of, 63; the Qur'an's (q.v.)
emphasis on the humanity of, 67, 68; the Qur'an's
(q.v.) denial of the crucifixion (q.v.) of, 68-71.
Isaac, 298.
Isma'il. Prophet, 263.
Isr:lfil, 160, 161, 163.
J
Jabr, remarks of, about the Quraysh leaders (q.v.)
allegation of his having taught the Prophet, 46.
Jabir ibn 'AbdAllah, 122, 123, 137, 139, 159.
Jabrites, the, 298.
Jeffery, Arthur, 112, 217, 268, 347; on the history of
the Qur'an (q.v.), 218-232, 233, 357; on the alleged
foreign vocabulary of the Qur'an (q.v.), 311-316,
360, 361.
Jerusalem, 252, 266.
Jesus, (see also 'Isa), 27, 29, 31, 65,265,312.
Jews, the, 248,253,265,311,312,313.
Jibril. 42, 93, 101, 102, 104, 105, 106, 108, 110, 117,
118, 119, 120, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 145,
148; 151, 152, 156, 176 180, 181, 190, 1.97, 199,207,
356, 357; assumption of Bell (q.v.) about,
110-120,121-123, 124-125.
John of Damascus, 65.
Joseph of Arirnaethia, 70.
Joseph Smith, 101, 106.
Jubayr ibn Mut'irn, 23.
Justinian (emperor), 65.
K
Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf, 267.
Ka'ba, the, 34, 36, 252, 263.
Kasimirski, M., French translation of the Qur'an by,
329.
Ketenensis, see, Robert Ketenensis.
Khadijah (r.a.), 151; Prophet's marriage with, 8, 9; 114,
136, 137; reaction of, to the Prophet's receipt of
wai?J, 12-13; 93, 167-171; the Prophet's leading the
trade caravan of, 26-27, 38.
Khilid al-'Udwani, qadfth of, 178, 197.
Khilid ibn al-Walid, 234.
Khandaq, the battle of, 253.
Khaybar, 257,267.
Khuzaymah ibn Thabit 226.
Koren, J, theory of, about the history of the Qur'an
(q.v), 2560258; criticism of the theory, 258-267.
Kufa, wlcome of 'Uthman's compilation of the Qur'an
at, 229.
KUfans, the, 227.
L
Lees, Dr. William Nassau, views of, regarding the
literary style of the Qur'an (q.v.), 272,273.
Leopold I, the Holy Roman Emperor, 327.
Lester, Toby, 2; article of, in the Atlantic Monthfy,
268-269, 271.
Lot, see Lut.
Lut, Prophet, 30, 46, 47, 48,49, 50, 60.
Luxenberg, Christoph (pseudonym), the Syro-Aramaic
reading of the Qur'an by, 313,314-315.
M
Madina, 253, 257; inscriptions at the Great Mosque of,
258, 260-261; Qur'an copyists at, 258, 26; the Jews
at, 267.
Makka, 8, 10, 33, 38, 252, 253, 266; Christian slaves in,
45, Quraysh leaders of, 45-46; introduction of
idolatry at, 263.
Makkan unbelievers, the, objections of, to the Qur'an
(q.v.), 1, 353; the Qur'an's replies to the objections
of, 1-2.
Malik ibn al-Sayf, 66.
Malik, Imam, 246.
Ma'mun, al-, 258.
Marcionite Gospel, the, view of, about 'Isa (q.v.), 68.
Margoliouth, David S., 217, 252, 353; theory of, about
the Prophet's ambition (q.v.) and preparation, 7-8;
wrong use of the Qur'anic evidence by, 9; allegation
of the Prophet's cultivation of poetical skill made
by, 14; on the Prophet's illiteracy, 15; allegation of,
about the Prophet's borrowing from
Judaeo-Christian sources, 27-29, 100, 103-104, 106;
assumptions of, about waqy (q.v.), 91-92;
99-101,134,150,155,182,184, 193; criticism of the
assumptions, 101-106; assumptions of, about the
vision of God, 106, 117; criticism of the
assumption, 1 06-109.
Marracci, Ludovicco, Latin translation of the Qur'an
(q.v.) by, 327,328,329,330,331,332.
Martin Luther, 37, 324, 325.
Marwan ibn Hakam, 238, 239.
Mary (see also Maryam), 27, 31, 54, 63, 64, worship of,
by the Catholics (q.v.), 65.
Mary Magdalene, 70.
Maryam (see also Mary), 54, 64, 65, 67, 68, 148.
Masson, D., French translation of the Qur'an by, 351.
Megerlin, D. F., German translation of the Qur'an by,
329.
Miqdad b. al-Aswad, mutf;af of, 227; welcomed
'Uthman's compilation of the Qur'an, 229.
Mikhael, 125.
Moreno, Mario, Italian translation of the Qur'an by,
351.
Mormon sect, the, 101.
Moses, (see also Musa), 29.
Mount Sinai, 273, 276.
Mu'awiyah, 261.
Mughlrah ibn Mina, 202.
Muhammad (p.b.h), asked not to move his tongue to
memorize the Qur'an (q.v.), 1; the alleged
authorship of, of the Qur'an (q.v.), 2, 4, 7, 353, 354;
on the alleged ambition (q.v.) of, 7-14, 92, 94, 99,
101; on the alleged cultivation of poetical skill by,
14-15; alleged borrowing of, from Judaeo-Christian
sources, 26-33, 100, 103-104, 106, 149; 265, 306,
308, 311, 312, 336, 337, 354-355; criticism of the
allegation, 40; the alleged environmental influence
on, 33-35; the so-called Qur'anic evidence about a
monotheist informant of, 36, 40-46; the alleged
contact of, with Judaeo-Christian experts, 38-40;
Quraysh opponents of, 38-39; the alleged growth in
biblical information of, 46-53, 252.
Mu]:J.ammad ibn 'Amr ibn I:Iazm, 254.
Muir, William, 2, 29, 39, 63, 101, 115, 150, 203; 206,
245,256,336,337,338,
about the Prophet's ambition (q.v.) and preparation,
7, 92, 94; allegation of, about the Prophet's
cultivation of poetical skill, 14; on the Prophet's
illiteracy, 15; allegation of, about the Prophet's
borrowing from Judaeo-Christian sources, 26-27;
view of, about wai!J ( q.v.), 91, 92-94, 193, 216, 273,
337; criticism of the view, 94-99.
Muller, F. Max, 340.
Musa, 13, 35, 136, 171, 309, 312; differences in the
story of, in the Old Testament (q.v.) and in the
Qur'an (q.v.), 58-60.
Mus'ab ibn 'Umayr, 199.
Musaylama al-Kadhdhab, 234.
the, 250.
N
Najran, 254.
Naskh, the concept of, 241-242, 243; and the Bell-Watt
theory of revision of the Qur'an (q.v.), 282-285.
ibn 202.
Negev, 266; archaeological excavations at, 256-257,
258, 263, 264.
Nerreter, David, German translation of the Qur'an
(q.v.) by, 327, 329.
Nestorian Church, the, 29.
Nestorius, 38.
Nevo, Yahuda De, 2; theory of, regarding the history
of the Qur'an (q.v.), 256-258, 269, 359; criticism of
the theory, 258-267.
New Testament, the, 36, 169, 171, 192, 353;Jibril (q.v.)
as conveyer of wa!?J in, 105, 106; wafry (q.v.) in, 129.
INDEX 371
Noah, 277 (see also Nuh).
Noldeke, Theodore, 2, 30, 47, 197, 222, 252, 336, 337,
338, 353; assumptions of, about the history of the
Qur'an (q.v.), 202-205, 218, 232, 314, 317, 357, 358,
359; assumption of, about the literary style of the
Qur'an (q.v.), 203, 205, 273-280, 289, 300, 360;
criticism of the assumptions, 205-217; remarks of,
regarding the alleged foreign vocabulary of the
Qur'an (q.v.), 307-308, 311-312; criticism of the
remarks, 308-311;
Nuh,54,263,278,305,349,361.
ibn Awfi, 66.
0
Ohlmarks, A., Swedish translation of the Qur'an by,
352.
Old Testament, the, 36, 46, 66, 165, 166, 167, 169, 171,
192, 353, 360; stories of the Prophets in the Qur'an
( q.v.) and in, 50, 53-61.
Orientalists, attempt of, to assail the Qur'an (q.v.), 1;
allegation of, that the Qur'an is a composition of
Muhammad (p.b.h) (q.v.), 2; main lines of
of, against the Qur'an (q.v.), 2-3,
354-360; allegation of ambition made against the
Prophet by, 7-14; allegation of the Prophet's
cultivation of poetical skill made by, 14-15; criticism
of the allegation of ambition made by, 9-14.
p
Palestine, 252.
Palmer, E. H., comment of, on Sale's (q.v.) Qur'an
translation, 335; translation of the Qur'an by,
340-343, 344, 345.,
Papacy, the, 360,361.
Paret, Rudi, German translation of the Qur'an by, 351.
Persian empire/power, 250, 353.
Persians, the, 311, 313.
Peter, the Venerable, commissioning of the first
translation of the Qur'an (q.v.) by, 324, 330.
Pharaoh, the, 57, 58, 59, 60.
Pilate, 69, 70.
Podmore, 109.
Poulain, A., 109, 166, 167; theory of "intellectual
locution" of, 172-173, 182, 184-185, 186.
Prideaux, Dr., 330.
Prophets, the, story of, in the Qur'an (q.v.), 49-50,
differences in the Qur'anic and biblical accounts of,
53-61.
Protestants, the, 330.
Puin, Gerd. R., speculations of, about the San'a' (q.v.)
manuscripts, 267-268,269, 270.
Q
Qadrites, the, 298.
Qur'an, the, attempt of the orientalists (q.v.) to assail,
1; replies of, to the objections of the Makkan
unbelievers (q.v.), 1-2; the Prophet Muhammad
(q.v.) (p.b.h) asked not to move his tongue to
memorize the, 1; sending down of, in the form of
particular texts, 1; challenge to anyone to come up
with a text similar to that of, 2; the orientalists' (q.v.)
theory of the evolution of, 2, 3, 4, 256-258, 314;
main arguments of the orientalists (q.v.) against, 2-3;
the alleged scientific errors in, 32, 71-88, 355; dating
of, by Bell (q.v.), 47, 232; Rodwell's (q.v.)
assumption of revision of, 337; theory of revision
of, by Bell (q.v.), 182, 221, 232, 282-304, 343,
360-361; the Bell-Watt views about the history of,
233-240, 241; the Bell-Watt views about the literary
style of, 279-282; story of the Prophets (q.v.) in,
49-50; differences in the stories of the Prophets in
the Old Testament (q.v.) and in, 53c61, 355; the
supposed mistakes about Judaism and Christianity
in, 62-71, denial of the Trinity (q.v.) by, 67; denial of
the divinity of 'Isa (q.v.) by, 67; basic facts about the
history of, 197-202; Noldeke's (q.v.) assumptions
about the history of, 202-205, 232, 357; criticism of
the assumptions, 205-217; Noldeke's assumptions
about the literary style of, 203, 205-106, 273-280,
360; the alleged foreign vocabulary of, 217, 305-316;
theory of Burton (q.v.) on the history of, 241-244;
the variant readings of, 252; criticism of the theory,
258-267; the earliest translations of, 324-325, 326,
327; A. Rodwell's (q.v.) translation of, 271; Bell's
(q.v.) translation of, 271; Abu! Fazl's (q.v.)
translation of, 271; W. N. Lees (q.v.) on the literary
style of, 272; the alleged copyist's errors in, 3, 269,
271,316-323,363.
Quraysh leaders, the, 45-46, 98, criticism of the
Prophet by, 38-39, 40, torture of the Christian
converts to Islam by, 53; betting by, over the
Qur'anic prophecy about the victory of the Romans
(q.v.), 340.
al-, 66, 80.
Quss ibn Sa'ida, 27, 39, 100, 104.
R
Raymond, Archbishop, of Toledo (q.v.), 324.
Raymond Lull, of Catalania, establishment of the
College of Friars at Miramar by, 324.
Razi, al-, see Fakhr al-Din al-Razi.
Reformation, the, 37, 324, 361, 362.
Renaissance, the European,361, 362.
Revisionism, in respect of the history of the Qur'an
(q.v.), 245-248,256-258, 358.
Revisionists, the, 2, 4; theory of, 256-258, 314,361.
Riddah wars, the, 200.
Rippin, Andrew, 2.
Robert Ketenensis (also Retenensis) Latin translation
of the Qur'an (q.v.) by, 324, 325, 326.
Robles, Garber de, the ftrst Spanish translation of the
Qur'an by, 329.
Rodinson, Maxime, view of, about the authenticity of
l;adi'th (q.v.), 247.
Rodwell, J. M., 206; translation of the Qur'an (q.v.) by,
271, 335, 336-340, 343; remarks of, on Sale's (q.v.)
translation of the Qur'an, 327-328.
Romans, the, prophecy of the Qur'an about the victory
of, 339-340.
Ross, Alexander, the fust English translation of the
Qur'an (q.v.) by, 326.
Ross, Sir E. Denison, 331; introduction written by, to
the Qur'an commentary of E. M. Wherry (q.v.), 328.
Ryer, Andre du, the ftrst French translation of the
Qur'an by, 325-326.
Sa'id ibn al-'As, 201.
St. Sophia, 65.
s
Sale, George, 203; remarks of, on the translation of the
Qur'an by Robert Ketenensis (q.v.), 324; remarks
of, on the ftrst French translation of the Qur'an
(q.v.), 325; remarks of, on the English translation of
the Qur'an by Alexander Ross (q.v.), 326; English
translation of the Qur'an (q.v.) by, 327-329, 339,
343; glimpses of the Qur'an translation of, 330-335.
Silih, Prophet, 29, 49.
Silim, 226, 234; murf?af of, 224.
Sam, p. 305, 361.
Samiri (the Israelite), 58,
discovery of Qur'anic manuscripts at, 256, 267;
the orientalists speculations about the Qur'anic
manuscripts at, 267-271.
Satanic verses, the, the spurious story of, 284-285.
Savary, M., French translation of the Qur'an by, 328,
329.
Schacht,]., assumptions of, about l;adith, 241, 242, 245,
249, 254, 258, 262, 359; untenability of the views of,
245-247.
Schweigger, Solomon, the ftrst German translation of
the Qur'an (q.v.) by, 325.
Semitic languages, the, 305, 313.
Shawkini, al-, 80.
Shu'ayb, Prophet, 342.
Siva (Hindu god), 37.
Sky, the, description of, in the Qur'an (q.v.), 81-88,
355.
Solomon, see Sulayman.
Sprenger, Aloys, 2, 149, 203, 216, 245, 272, 279, 306,
307, 311, 312, 314, 336.
Sulayman, 60.
Sullam ibn Mishkam, 66.
Syria,252,258,263,264,305,306,361.
Syriac, 305, 306, 313, 314, 315, 345, 347, 361.
Syrians, the, 227.
Szedmajer, Buziday, Hungarian translation of the
Qur'an by, 329.
Ta'if, 10, 149.
Talmud, the, 306.
T
Thabit ibn Qays ibn Shammas, 234.
Thamud, the, 30, 49, 306.
Toledo, the establishment of the School of Oriental
Studies at, 324.
Tollens, L. J. A., Dutch translation of the Qur'an by,
329.
Torrey, C. C., 40, 41, 42, 43, 221; theory of, about
commercial-theological terms in the Qur'an (q.v.),
313,314,315-316.
Tddeva, similarity of the Hindu concept of, with the
Trinity (q.v.), 37.
INDEX 373
Trinity, the, 37, 55, 63; 148, 337; alleged Qur'anic
misconception about, 31, 64-65; the Qur'an's denial
of, 67; existence of, in Hinduism, 37.
Turks, the, the Europeans' dislike of, 326.
0
Obay ibn Ka'b, 226, welcomed 'Othman's (q.v.)
compilation of the Qur'an, 29; murktif of, 214, 215,
219,224,227-228,240.
'Ohud, the battle of, 254.
'Okaz, 39, 104.
L., German translation of the Qur'an by, 329.
'Omar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz, 260,261.
'Omar ibn al-Khattab, 234, 235, 358; role of, in the
compilation ot"the Qur'an (q.v.), 220-201, 225, 226,
228, 233,236-237, 241; muf4tif of, 219.
Omayyads, the, 266.
'Umm(y, 346; assumption of Watt (q.v.) on the
Prophet's being an, 15-16,354.
'Orwah ibn al-Zubayr, 213, collection of kadtth (q.v.)
by, 254-255.
'Othman ibn 'Affan, 226, 238, compilation of the
Qur'an (q.v.) under, 201, 202, 204, 206-207, 210,
211, 213, 215, 216, 219-220, 226-227, 228, 229-230,
231, 233, 235, 236-237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242,
243-244,254,262,357,358.
'Othman ibn al-f;Iuwayrith, 33.
'Ozayr, 31, 64; the alleged mistake in the Qur'an (q.v.)
about, 66-68.
v
Vemet,Juan, Spanish translation of the Qur'an by, 351.
Vishnu (Hindu god), 37.
Voltaire, false claims about George Sale (q.v.) made by,
331.
w
Wadi al-Qura, 257.
WakJI, 124, 125, the orientalists' (q.v.) concept of the
Qur'anic, 3, 91, 203, 214, 272, 355-356; Muir's (q.v.)
view of, 91, 92-94, 203; criticism of the view, 94-99;
Bell's (q.v.) assumptions about, 110-117, 125,
criticism of the assumption, 126-130; Watt's (q.v.)
view of, 41, 172-186, 172-186; Qur'anic evidence
about, 130-133, 186-193.
Wahl, S. F. G., German translation of the Qur'an by,
329.
234.
Walid, Caliph al-, 255, 258, 260, 261.
Wansborough, ]., 2, 265; fallacies of, regarding the
history of the Qur'an (q.v.), 248-249, 258, 262, 265,
269, 313-314, 359; arguments against the fallacies
of, 249-256.
Waqidi, (MuQ.ammd ibn 'Omar) al-, 94, 161;
Waraqh ibn Nawfal, 33, 93, 114, 150; reaction of, to
the Prophet's receipt of waf[y (q.v.), 12, 13, 16, 136,
167-171; alleged teaching of the Prophet by, 17, 27,
40, 185.
Watt, W. M., 2, 217,252,256,313,315, 356; allegation
of, about the Prophet's ambition (q.v.) and
preparation, 8; wrong interpretation of the Qur'anic
passage 93:6-8 by, 10-11; assumptions of, on the
Prophet's illiteracy, 15-16, 158, 354; discussion of
the assumption, 16-25; allegation of, about the
Prophet's borrowing from Judaeo-Christian sources,
29-32; cnt1c1sm of the allegation, 33-40;
misinterpretation of the Qur'anic texts by, to
support the supposition about a monotheist
informant of the Prophet, 40-46; theory of, about
the growth in the Prophet's biblical information,
46-47; criticism of the theory, 47 -53; the
supposition of mistakes about Judaism and
Christrianity in the Qur
1
an (q.v.) made by, 62-71;
supposition of, about scientific errors in the Qur'an
(q.v.), 71-88; view of, about waf[y (qv.), 41, 92, 99,
134; theory of "intellectual locution" of, 172-186,
356; treatment of al-Zuhri's report by, 134-171,
179-180, 356; assumption of, about the vision of
God, 106, 109, 138-148, 152-156, 161, 162-163, 164,
165, 166; assumptions of, regarding the visit to
Hira' (q.v.), 148-151; view of, about the history of
the Qur'an (q.v.), 232, 233-240, 243, 244; view of,
about the literary style of the Qur'an, 281-282;
assumption of, regarding the revision of the Qur'an
(q.v.), 282-304, 360; position taken by, in respect of
the sources of Islamic history, 246.
Wellhausen, W., 2.
Whelan, Estelle, criticism of the revisionists' (q.v.) view
by, 258-262.
Wherry, E. M., commentary on the Qur'an by,
328-329.
X
Xybar, see Khaybar.
374
Ya\;lya ibn Ya'mar, 202.
Yaman, 306.
Ya'qub, 55,266.
y
Yusuf, story of, in the Old Testament (q.v.) and in the
Qur'an (q.v.), 55-58.
z
Zayd ibn al-Khattab, 234.
Zayd ibn I;Iarithah, 27, 39.
Zayd ibn Th:lbit, role of, in the compilation of the
Qur'an (q.v.), 200-2001, 204, 209-210, 211, 214,
215, 216, 225-226, 227, 229, 237, 303-304, 358;
mushtif of, 219.
Zoroastrians, the, 248, 253, 264, 265.
Zuhri, Ibn Shihab al-, Watt's (q.v.) treatment of the
report of, 134-171, 179-180, 356; collection of }Jadith
(q.v.) by, 255.

The Quran and Orientalists

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

The Quran and Orientalists

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Quran and Orientalists

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE QUR'AN AND THE ORIENTALISTS

This passage indicates, as is admitted on all

You might also like